As far as the sources are concerned, both passage and the lecture disguss frog populations decriase and wipe out and how can be solved these problems. While the reading passege mainly on solution of extinctions of frog, the proffesor argued that these solutions difficulties.
Firstly, the reading passage says thar frogs are endangered by pesticides which are chimical for insects and affecting frog's nervous system. İt suggested that if goverment banded to use thıs from farmers, it would considerable decline the damage pesticides. However, the listening passage says that this suggession is not economicly practical. Danger population could be in former area and it lead to loose more crab.
Secondly, in contrast of speaker point of view, the author points out that the signaficant factor in frog species reduce is funges which harms the skin and does not allow the skin absorb water. Reserchers suggested several method to protect frogs which has attifungal medicion that kill the fungus with heat. İf those treatments applied on the giant scale, it would be useful. However, the lisstening passage stress that it sould apply each frog and it is extremly hard. İt should apply again and again and this prosedur is copmlicated and expensive.
Finally, unlike the speaker, the author states that frogs natural habitat is indanger because of people. İf their habitats such as lakes or rivers could protect well, they could survive. The speaker, goes on to say, however, that the frog are not in safe because of global warming which is theated their extinctions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 393, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'leads'?
Suggestion: leads
...pulation could be in former area and it lead to loose more crab. Secondly, in contr...
^^^^
Line 2, column 401, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[3]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
... could be in former area and it lead to loose more crab. Secondly, in contrast of sp...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 215, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun method seems to be countable; consider using: 'several methods'.
Suggestion: several methods
...skin absorb water. Reserchers suggested several method to protect frogs which has attifungal m...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, well, while, in contrast, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1319.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 254.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19291338583 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5345801128 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61811023622 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 391.5 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.5739360766 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.2142857143 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1428571429 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.64285714286 7.06452816374 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 0.402143638087 0.272083759551 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116750913338 0.0996497079465 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0705151113528 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.218270755331 0.162205337803 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0385170410484 0.0443174109184 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.69 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.