In this set of the materials, the author of the reading passage expresses three methods of solving the problem of declining frog populations. However, the professor thinks that the author's theories contain some defects.
First of all, the author states that if laws prohibited the farmers from using harmful pesticides near sensitive frog populations, it would significantly reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs. However, the professor indicates that reducing pesticides on the farm crops which is near the frog populations, it is unfair to the farmers. Because this strict regulation will let the farmers lose their advantages such as crops and yield, and the farmers will lose the crops' competition.
In addition, the author claims that if researchers can apply the antifungal medication and treatments to kill the fungus, it would protect sensitive frog populations from infection. On the contrary, the professor asserts that the new treatments can only apply on each individual frog, it is extremely difficult to succeed. Furthermore, the treatments do not prevent the infection for the offsprings. It is complicated and expensive.
Finally, the author raises the point that because the frogs' natural habitats are threatened by human activities. Frogs depend on water and wetland habitats to lay their eggs in water. Therefore, by recovering the frog species, it is better to protect lakes and marshes form excessive water use and development, On the other hand, the professor refutes the author's idea by saying that the human activities are not the biggest problem. Global warming is the biggest threatened causes the frogs disappear. Prohibiting the human activities would not solve the problem that frogs go extinct.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 468, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'crops'' or 'crop's'?
Suggestion: crops'; crop's
...nd yield, and the farmers will lose the crops competition. In addition, the autho...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 357, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e other hand, the professor refutes the authors idea by saying that the human activitie...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, in addition, such as, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1467.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41328413284 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8421573526 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535055350554 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4461593537 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.785714286 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3571428571 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.07142857143 7.06452816374 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.495333830004 0.272083759551 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165439180031 0.0996497079465 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109145164978 0.0662205650399 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.262697334172 0.162205337803 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101900161422 0.0443174109184 230% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.