In the reading, it was stated that there are ways to protect frogs from extinction and some reasons are provided to support, but the professor refutes all the cause by using several points against it. In the lecture, the professor challenged three ways to protect the frog’s decline. He says that the theory/argument mentioned in the passage was very imprecise and different from what is actual happenings.
Firstly, the reading described that frogs are harmed by pesticide which farmers use it to prevent insects from damaging the farm corps. The passage argues that it attacks the frog’s nervous system and the problem with the breathing system eventually might lead to the death of frogs. However, the speaker posits that it is not economical fair for the farmer because it will decrease crops yield. on the other hand, farmers use pesticide to increase crop yield and to stay competitive in the market. This directly contradicts what the passage indicates.
Secondly, the passage states that the spread of fungus which has the deadly effect is thickening skin of frogs so they cannot absorb water. In contrast, the speaker talks about the ineffectiveness of this method because this treatment should be applied individually and repeatedly for each generation. however, it is complicated and expensive. This was another part where experience contradicted the theory.
Thirdly, the passage mentioned that frogs declined since natural habitats are threatened because frogs lay their eggs are in water and wetland and using excessive water and draining wetland are reasons for natural habitats’ destruction. On the other hand, the speaker in the lecture claims that using excessive water and draining wetland is not the reasons. The real problem is global warming and it the cause of extinction for so many species. This invalidates the statement of the passage again.
In summary, the points made in the lecture contrasts with the reading. The professor establishes that no practical solutions are presented in the passage. Therefore, we can conclude that the passage fails to prove itself.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 401, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: On
...r because it will decrease crops yield. on the other hand, farmers use pesticide t...
^^
Line 3, column 302, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: However
...lly and repeatedly for each generation. however, it is complicated and expensive. This ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, in contrast, in summary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1778.0 1373.03311258 129% => OK
No of words: 335.0 270.72406181 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30746268657 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74877562407 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531343283582 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 538.2 419.366225166 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.4792269107 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.5789473684 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6315789474 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.57894736842 7.06452816374 93% => 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: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.379204380854 0.272083759551 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.094266131897 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110436477412 0.0662205650399 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186147097603 0.162205337803 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109272463871 0.0443174109184 247% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 63.6247240618 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.