The passage explains about the declination in frog's population and three methods to protect frogs. While the lecture contends those methods being impractical and expensive.
Firstly, in the passage, it has been affirmed that the decline in the frog's population can be because of excessive use of pesticides in the farms. According to the passage, in order to protect frogs, pesticides have been banned in the fields. Whereas, the lecture suggests that banning pesticides will cause a great loss for farmers because large amounts of crops will be destroyed in lack of pesticides. This will exacerbate the competitive crop markets. Therefore, the first method is not economically practicable.
Secondly, the treatment of the frogs against fungal skin infections in the passage is quite difficult task.in the passage, it is explained that frogs are caused to death because of the thickening of the skin which made them dehydrated. Antifungal medication has to be done to each frog which is hard to perform. In the same way, this won't avoid the frog to transfer the same disease to its offspring. Thus, the second method is also ruled out by the lecture.
Thirdly, in the passage, the decline in the frog population is due to the destruction of the natural habitats of the frogs. This is explained to be destroyed by the human development works. While, the major reason for the decrease in number of frogs is due to global warming. The use of water for human development has nothing to do with declination of frogs. So, the third method of protecting frogs has been ruled out by the lecture.
In conclusion, in the lecture, it has given a compendium to the impracticality of the methods in the passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 71, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...s been affirmed that the decline in the frogs population can be because of excessive ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, whereas, while, as to, in conclusion, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 30.3222958057 171% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1425.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98251748252 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79951172189 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486013986014 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 438.3 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.0382382712 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.8235294118 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8235294118 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.88235294118 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.38544456277 0.272083759551 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119597447217 0.0996497079465 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0910830315019 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196803235773 0.162205337803 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109113804598 0.0443174109184 246% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.