Both the article and the lecture offer two opposing views on controlling the declining and extincting population of frog species. While the text details about how the frogs are essential for ecosystems and gives three solutions to address this decline, the lecturer totally repudiates this claim of the article and rejects these solutions. She thinks that these arguments have problems and are not practical to implement.
First of all, the text mentions that pesticides used in agriculture fields spread to neighboring frog areas and lead to respiration issues in frogs, so the use of pesticides should be banned in fields near frog sensitive areas. In contrary, the lecturer posits that banning pesticides is neither economical nor fair as farmers use pesticides to increase their crops yield and quality. Additionally, regulating the pesticides only in frog sensitive areas would put those farmers on high disadvantage in comparison to the farmers whose fields are not near these zones. Consequently, it can indeed be argued that the claim made in the reading is unsubstantiated.
Besides this, the article goes on to state that growing fungus is another cause of the frogs decline and the frogs should be treated with antifungal medicines on large scale. The lecturer, however, refutes this by mentioned that large scale treatment on every infected from is highly impractical. In addition to this, the infection may pass to offspring and the treatment has to be repeated for them also. Clearly, there is a disparity exists between the reading and the arguments put forth by the professor.
Finally, the text contends that the frogs habitats in the form of lakes and wetlands decline due to abuse of these water resources by humans. Although, the lecturer acknowledges the need to protect water resources as a noble idea, she believes that text does not consider the main reason for this decline of water habitats. As per her, it the global warming and not the humans which is the main threat to these habitats. Subsequently, we need to be working towards addressing the threat of global warming.
To summarize, while both the reading and the lecture provide interesting information with regard to addressing the frogs numbers decline, a significant amount of evidence support that professor stated more legitimate and tangible factors. Thus, the reading passage fails to justify the claim towards her.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 401, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...e treatment has to be repeated for them also. Clearly, there is a disparity exists b...
^^^^
Line 10, column 116, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...formation with regard to addressing the frogs numbers decline, a significant amount o...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, consequently, finally, first, however, if, may, so, thus, while, as to, in addition, first of all, with regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 30.3222958057 168% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2032.0 1373.03311258 148% => OK
No of words: 388.0 270.72406181 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23711340206 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75170359507 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 145.348785872 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.536082474227 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 621.9 419.366225166 148% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.0969285601 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.529411765 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8235294118 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.52941176471 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.353903471477 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0968679314922 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0839183690466 0.0662205650399 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171142649172 0.162205337803 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0570639520849 0.0443174109184 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 63.6247240618 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.