In view of the reading, the author enumerates some solution for the decrease of many frog species by pointing out 3 reasons for support. Finding the statements arguable, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made by the article and count them weak. Therefore, presents a piece of evidence in contrary.
At first, the author argues that the law against the use of pesticides which farmers use for providing safe environment for their products like corns and sugarcanes could have prevented the obnoxious effect of them on the frogs since this chemical material can attack the nervous system and create breathing problems. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that not only is this law economically unpractical but also can have bad effect on the product's yield.
In addition, the reading passage holds the view that medication and treatment against fungus which acts by thickening the skin and deminish the absorbance rate and kill the frogs, could be possible for preventing their decrease. On the other hand, the lecturer disputes this point by clarifying the fact that so arduous these treatments are that could not conceivable to do. Also, fungus transport by the generation and the treatment should do on every offspring.
Finally, the author asserts the bereft of good habitat as the last point for supporting the decrease of the frogs. The lecturer, though, dismisses it by saying that the water not use by human for development. The main problem is global warming and it could not be solved easily.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, if, so, therefore, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1272.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06772908367 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60775765623 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601593625498 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 376.2 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.715226275 49.2860985944 148% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.636363636 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8181818182 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.237271231143 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0719821318868 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0769271121544 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127545606191 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0450074335816 0.0443174109184 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.