Reading and lecture both discuss about the endangered situation frogs species are in, and they deal with the question whether or not some measures against frogs' extinction are viable. The speaker considers that this declining can be prevented and he provides three reasons of support. The lecturer however casts doubts on the claims made by the writer, stating that there are some problems with the solutions he suggested.
First, decreasing the use of pesticides affects the farmers from economical point of view. This is because of unfair competition with farmers who live in territories where there are not frog species. In other words, the latter ones can use pesticides, and therefore they benefit from larger crops and higher gains.
Second, treating frogs is a very complex process because they have to catch each individual and administrate the treatment. Moreover, treating a mature frog does not prevent their off-springs from getting ill, and thereby those must also pass through the same process. As a consequence, they have to do this continuously, and doing this at a large scale is unrealistic, complicated and quite expensive.
Third, human activities does not represent the main factor that endangers the frogs' habitat, but the climate change. Because of this phenomenon numerous lakes and water supplies evaporate, leading to the disappearance of frogs' homes, and thereby to their extinction. Thus, limiting the use of water by human beings, will not save the frogs.
In the end, it is clear that the reasons offered by the article, present some practical problems, and these cannot help saving frog species from being extincted.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 106, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
...rogs species are in, and they deal with the question whether or not some measures against frogs exti...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 79, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...sent the main factor that endangers the frogs habitat, but the climate change. Becaus...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 221, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...aporate, leading to the disappearance of frogs homes, and thereby to their extinc...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, moreover, second, so, therefore, third, thus, in fact, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1396.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 264.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28787878788 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03089032464 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64744276011 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.632575757576 0.540411800872 117% => OK
syllable_count: 415.8 419.366225166 99% => 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: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.51434878587 462% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 28.9551785846 49.2860985944 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 107.384615385 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3076923077 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38461538462 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.36844179146 0.272083759551 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.117141376413 0.0996497079465 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0539382864549 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187772895247 0.162205337803 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0361032485994 0.0443174109184 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => 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: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.