In the reading, the author claims that many methods have been proposed to prevent from declining of frogs which these frogs positively affect ecosystems, by pointing out three reason of support. However, finding all the ideas questionable and implausible, the lecturer totally repudiates the claim and presents some evidence to the contrary.
At first, the author argues that reducing pesticides would be an effective method to preventing from frogs declining. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that it is not economically practical owing to it have detrimental effects on farmers' economic. According to her, if some farmers reduced their pesticides, their lands products would less produce some products compare to the other farmers that do not reduce their pesticides.
In addition, the reading passage holds the view that one of the factors in frog population decline might be fungus owing to the fact that fungus adversely affects frogs skin and scientists have discovered some treatments for preventing the skin infection. On the other hand, the lecturer disputes the idea by clarifying the fact that these treatments should be applied exclusively for each individual frog which is so difficult. She explained, these treatments also have to applied to each generation of frogs which is so expensive and sophisticated project.
Finally, the author asserts threatened frogs’ natural habitats might have been one of the reasons for their population declining and scientists inclined to conduct some works for this situation, as the last point for supporting the allegation. The lecturer, though, dismisses the idea by pointing out that that would not be safe for frog population. She asserted, the main reason of this declining is global warming causing entire species to be extinct.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 307, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
...ugh, dismisses the idea by pointing out that that would not be safe for frog population. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, first, however, if, so, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1531.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 281.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44839857651 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81035162666 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544483985765 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 459.0 419.366225166 109% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5287742261 49.2860985944 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.181818182 110.228320801 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5454545455 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.36363636364 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
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: 0.382970566642 0.272083759551 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.147955592921 0.0996497079465 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0928562619035 0.0662205650399 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230729920888 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0397959087338 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.63 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.77 8.42419426049 116% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.