Both reading and lecture propose some methods to decrease the recent decline of frog population. The lecturer states that the solutions that the reading exposes are not practical, and he proposes different methods to slow down the decline of the frog population.
First, the reading suggests that pesticides used in farmland, which inevitably, spread into the neighboring frog habitats, harm the frog population. The lecturer contends that banning pesticide by law would cause an economic problem, and is unfair because this would create a disadvantage for farmers, who would be less competitive with those using pesticides.
Second, the reading mentions a treatment to prevent fungus infection, which causes thickening of the skin that leads frogs to die from dehydration. The lecturer rebuts this by saying that this method is not practical and expensive because this method has to be applied singularly on each individual, furthermore, this treatment does not prevent to pass the infection to the offspring, and therefore, it needs to be applied repeatedly through generations.
Third, the lecturer believes that the decrease in frog population and the consequent extinction is not caused by the loss of habitats as the reading states. He points out that the real threat of frog population is the global warming, therefore, he sustains that reducing the water use and the draining of wetlands are unlike to prevent frogs from the harmful consequences of global warming.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, second, so, therefore, third, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1258.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 232.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4224137931 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90276135726 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83130275095 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.560344827586 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 369.9 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 60.7818846368 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.25 110.228320801 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0 21.698381199 134% => 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 : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.398794048401 0.272083759551 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.192900785659 0.0996497079465 194% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0927614581822 0.0662205650399 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.236142772406 0.162205337803 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0751478351173 0.0443174109184 170% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 13.3589403974 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 53.8541721854 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.75 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.