In the passage, three methods are offered to solve the issue of declining frog populations all of which are disregarded by the professor as impractical.
Firstly, regarding the possible restrictions on the use of pesticides, the professor argues that it is not economically feasible for the farmers. As if one were to require the handful of farmers whose lands do lie in the proximity of the frog habitats to not use pesticides, it would ultimately lower the yields of their farms and consequently have them at a disadvantage compared to their competitors, thus providing an impractical solution.
Secondly, she mentions that the treatment of frogs to cure them of the deadly fungus will require individual treatment of each frog. Furthermore, the treatment of a frog does not prevent it from passing the fungus to its offsprings hence requiring this individual treatment to be applied to a large number of frogs which would not be possible.
Lastly, she disregards the claim that water habitats are being mainly destroyed by using water for development purposes. Instead, she claims that the real reason water habitats are disappearing is the effects of global warming and thus this disappearance will remain unaffected by choosing a different approach to using water.
In conclusion, the professor refutes all the claims of the passage as impractical means to preserve the frog populations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 292, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...s individual treatment to be applied to a large number of frogs which would not be possible. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, lastly, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1183.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 224.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28125 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86867284054 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04428608613 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.566964285714 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 360.0 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 56.9428167112 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.875 110.228320801 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 21.698381199 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.25 7.06452816374 202% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.377766055183 0.272083759551 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153468724117 0.0996497079465 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0622659168687 0.0662205650399 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179811228208 0.162205337803 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0583944920128 0.0443174109184 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 13.3589403974 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.54 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.7273730684 144% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.