In the set of the materials, the article states that the decrease in frog population has serious consequences for the ecosystem, so the author proposes some solution for that. In the lecture, the professor explains that these methods are not practical to solve the problem of frog's decline and refute each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that by enacting the law to preventing the farmers from using harmful pesticides, we can prohibit the decrease of frog. However, the professor argues that this solution isn't fair and practical economically because it causes a lot of disadvantages to the specific farmers and reduces their yields.
Second, the reading passage says that use medical treatment to protect those of frogs that are sensitive to fungus infection. The professor counters this point by stating that this treatment must be implied in each of the frogs individually, so it can't be the practical method. In addition, he states that this medical prevention must be done again for each new generation of frogs. Therefore. it can't be a good solution.
Third, the reading makes the argumentation that if the water habitat of frog protected from misuse and overuse of human, frog's population will increase as a result. The professor refutes this claim by pointing out that human usage isn't a big threat to frog's habitat. he says that the real responsibility is global warming that reduces the water supply in frog habitats.
To summarize, in this reading, the author states that frog population decline can be solved with some methods. However, the professor disagrees with these methods and gives three pieces of evidence to reject each of the reasons.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 196, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...the professor argues that this solution isnt fair and practical economically because...
^^^^
Line 5, column 249, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...n each of the frogs individually, so it cant be the practical method. In addition, h...
^^^^
Line 5, column 249, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'cants'?
Suggestion: cants
...n each of the frogs individually, so it cant be the practical method. In addition, h...
^^^^
Line 5, column 384, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...again for each new generation of frogs. Therefore. it cant be a good solution. Third,...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 395, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...ach new generation of frogs. Therefore. it cant be a good solution. Third, the...
^^
Line 5, column 398, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... new generation of frogs. Therefore. it cant be a good solution. Third, the read...
^^^^
Line 5, column 398, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'cants'?
Suggestion: cants
... new generation of frogs. Therefore. it cant be a good solution. Third, the read...
^^^^
Line 7, column 232, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
... claim by pointing out that human usage isnt a big threat to frogs habitat. he says ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 268, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: He
...age isnt a big threat to frogs habitat. he says that the real responsibility is gl...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, so, therefore, third, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => 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: 1414.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1231884058 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68842532904 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521739130435 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 419.366225166 103% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.0984192843 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.769230769 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2307692308 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.69230769231 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.369435496989 0.272083759551 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141532956443 0.0996497079465 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0945651840123 0.0662205650399 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210517957691 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0691832410919 0.0443174109184 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.