The passage explains three major methods to solve the problems arose from frog population decline. However, the lecturer believes that none of the offered solutions are practical to slow down the problem of declining frog population. She challenges each solution method presented in the passage.
First, according to the passage, several laws should be passed to prohibit farmers from using pesticides which can spread from farmland into frog habitats and harm frogs. On the other hand, the lecturer contends that this solution is neither practical nor economic. She explains that farmers use pesticide in order to reduce crop loss and be able to compete with their competitors. If farmers have to follow strict laws on pesticide usage, they may lose more crops than their competitors and thus cannot continue competition.
Second, the author states that fungus is a major factor in frog population decline since they thicken frogs' skin, which kills frogs as a result of dehydration. Therefore, there is a need for treatments to kill fungus and save frogs. Nevertheless, the lecturer refutes this solution method by stating that there are several problems with this plan. First, frogs are required to be captured and treated individually which need much effort. Second, treating the parent frog would not prevent its offspring from being infected. Therefore, the treatment process has to be applied to different generations of frogs repeatedly.
Third, the author claims that water habitats that are threatened by human activities have to be protected from the excessive water use and development. However, the lecturer declares that restricting human activities such as excessive water usage cannot save frogs habitats since human activities are not the biggest threat. She identifies global warming as the main cause of habitat change and states that global warming has affected several areas in recent years and caused the decline or extinction of several species. Therefore, it is unlikely to stop frog population decline caused by global warming by restricting human activities.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, third, thus, as to, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1769.0 1373.03311258 129% => OK
No of words: 326.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4263803681 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63591903866 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542944785276 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 541.8 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.5312557172 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.058823529 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1764705882 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.11764705882 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 4.45695364238 269% => 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: 0.519188988351 0.272083759551 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.155131268453 0.0996497079465 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105803894567 0.0662205650399 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.28810382084 0.162205337803 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.068944992386 0.0443174109184 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.