TPO-48 - Integrated Writing Task In recent years, many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment. These population declines and extinctions have serious consequences for the ecosystems
Due to the drastic decrease in the population of frogs and its following negative consequence, some actions have been proposed in an attempt to reverse this circumstance. Although these solutions seem plausible, the lecturer suggests that they might encounter several obstacles for the following reasons.
To begin with, even though banning farmers from using pesticides with laws might reduce the harm to frogs, as suggested in the articles, the lecturer argues that it is a misconception. This is because this solution is neither fair nor economically practical to farmers, whose farms stand close to frogs’ habitats. Farmers rely on pesticides to stop pests from eating crops. Without pesticides, these farmers might not only lose crops but also become less competitive in markets. As a result, the usage of pesticides probably will pose a negative influence on farmers simultaneously.
Second, the article mentioned by the writer claims that we can apply some medical or heat treatments to prevent the fungus from halting the absorption of water in frogs. Nonetheless, the lecturer alleges that it will be a large-scale task, requiring capturing individual frogs. Furthermore, since this redemption cannot be passed on to the next generation of frogs, this manner might need to be repeatedly implemented. Thereby, it won’t be an efficient solution. Instead, it might be costly and complicated.
Last but not least, the lecturer concurs that it’s a good idea to reduce human usage of water in frogs’ habitats. Nonetheless, she points out that the actual threat to water areas is climate change, indicating that it is climate change that induces the disappearance of frogs' habitats.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 25 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 14 12
No. of Words: 267 250
No. of Characters: 1384 1200
No. of Different Words: 158 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.042 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.184 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.782 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.071 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.401 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.328 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 4