The article states that frog species have declined in numbers due to the changes in their environment and aver it has many serious consequences. In this regard, the article proposes three reasons for solving the problem. However, the professor explains that none of this proposed solutions are not practical and refutes each of the author's proposals.
First, the article claims that if we prohibit the farmers from using pesticides near sensitive frog populations it will prevent pesticides enter frog's body and stymie the reduction of the frog's population. The professor refutes this point by saying that it is not economical and it is unfair.
She states that farmers are in a competitive market and strict laws for some of them will yield fewer crops for them. in this regard, they lose the market.
Second, the article posits that fungus causes thickening of the skin in the frogs which leads to dehydration and death of them. However, the professor says that we need to catch each frog for treatment and it is not practical. According to the professor, the offspring of the frogs need the treatment too and we need to spend a vast amount of money for this complex proposed and not a practical solution.
Third, the reading says that we need some strict laws to hinder humans from changing the habitats of the frogs near wetland or marshes. The professor opposes this point by explaining that declining in the frog's population is not because the status quo of human activities. We also learn that this reduction originally is because global warming and prohibiting humans from works like water use or draining are unlikely to help save frogs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 189, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...gs body and stymie the reduction of the frogs population. The professor refutes this ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 118, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...f them will yield fewer crops for them. in this regard, they lose the market. Sec...
^^
Line 5, column 205, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...int by explaining that declining in the frogs population is not because the status qu...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, second, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1373.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93884892086 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54085452583 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514388489209 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 409.5 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.7722743798 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.615384615 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3846153846 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.30769230769 7.06452816374 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.370558090199 0.272083759551 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131024430757 0.0996497079465 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108864429828 0.0662205650399 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205432767809 0.162205337803 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0912572104495 0.0443174109184 206% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.