In view of the reading, the author enumerates some solution for declation of many frog species by pointing out 3 reasons of support. Finding the statements arguable, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made by the article and count them weak. Therfore, present 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 prevent the obnoxious effect of them on the frogs since these chemical material can attack the nervous system and create breath problems. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that not only is this law economically unpractical but also can have bad effect for the prodact's yield.
In addition, the reading passage holds the view that medication and treatment against fungus which act by thickening the skin and deminish the absorbance rate and kill the frogs, could be possible for preventing their decresion. On the other hand, the lecturer disputes this point by clarifying the fact that so arduous these treatments are that could not conceivble to do. Also, fungus transport by the generation and the treatment should do on every offsprings.
Finally, the author asserts the bereft of good habitat as the last point for supporting the decrection of the frogs. The lecturer, though, dismisses it by saying that the water not use by human for development. The main probleem is global warming and it could not solved easily.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 177, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'prevented'.
Suggestion: prevented
...ts like corns and sugarcanes could have prevent the obnoxious effect of them on the fro...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 265, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'solve'
Suggestion: solve
...leem is global warming and it could not solved easily.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, if, so, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => 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: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1264.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 248.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09677419355 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96837696647 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5991774093 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612903225806 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 370.8 419.366225166 88% => 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: 72.3178246948 49.2860985944 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.909090909 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5454545455 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 0.240120934304 0.272083759551 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0716642985085 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0778388637596 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127292697377 0.162205337803 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0534987938684 0.0443174109184 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.