The reading and the lecture both are about declining frog population. The author of the article believes that the reduction in frog population is due to change in their environment and provides three possible solutions. However, the professor casts doubts on each of the claims made by the author.
To begin with, the professor posits prohibiting farmers from using chemicals is not a logical solution. If farmers will stop using pesticides for their land, it will have a serious disadvantage on their crop production, thus, the economy will suffer. The farmers who can use pesticides will have a competitive edge as compared to farmers who will be not allowed to use chemicals to grow the crops. The reading, on the contrary, refutes this point made by the lecturer. It states that pesticides should be prohibited by the law as it is causing breathing problems in the frog when they consume the chemicals used by farmers to grow their crops.
Moreover, the professor in the talk mentions providing anti-fungal treatment to each and every frog in a population is a tedious and cumbersome process. Additionally, if frogs are treated with an anti-fungal agent, it does not guarantee that it will prevent offspring from having the disease. Treating each new generation of frog, again and again, is a complex and expensive process. The reading contradicts the point by the professor, the articles contends that anti-fungal treatment will save the frogs population from disappearing.
Furthermore, the lecturer mentions that increased use of water and altering the wetlands habitat is not a that serious issue which will help the frogs from extinction. The more pressing concern is global warming, which has negative consequences on the Earth and the living beings. Recent data suggest that because of global warming many species are on the urge of extinction. On the other hand, the article rebuts this point and states that excessive use of water by human beings is a serious threat to frogs population.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 500, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...hat anti-fungal treatment will save the frogs population from disappearing. Furthe...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 81, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'wetlands'' or 'wetland's'?
Suggestion: wetlands'; wetland's
...increased use of water and altering the wetlands habitat is not a that serious issue whi...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, thus, on the contrary, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1682.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 328.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12804878049 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78894600336 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506097560976 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 509.4 419.366225166 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.2944510818 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.125 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.386855755937 0.272083759551 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123064225036 0.0996497079465 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0742823798944 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221358603176 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301909466464 0.0443174109184 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.