Based on the given materials, the article as well as the lecture discusses decline in frogs' population. Since these animals protect human beings by removing disease, extinction of frogs will cause serious threat to local people. The author states that there are several viable methods regarding prevent these animals from extinction. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate this claim.
Initially, the writer says that if governments enact strict laws against farmers' use of pesticides, which are chemicals for eliminating insects, no more these harmful substances would be released into frog habitats. However, the speaker explains that it is unlikely economically practical, owing to the fact that farmers require these chemicals to decrease their crop losses; without using pesticides farmers will have insufficient products and they cannot sell their products in a competitive market.
Second, the author proclaims that dispersed deadly fungus prevent frogs from absorbing water by their skins, and one method for resist on this phenomenon is antifungal treatments, in which the fungus will be killed by heat. Yet again, the lecturer underscores that this mentioned treatment should be done individually on each frog, and it cannot be an economical method in large scales, because catching and treating each frog takes a long time. In addition, the treatment does not prevent frogs from passing fungus from their offspring. Thus, it should be repeated for each generation.
The final point of contention between the reading and the listening passage is human activities' effects on frog habitats. The author thinks that since these animals take advantage of water and wetlands in term of their nests, these places should be protected from human activities, which count as threats. On the other hand, the speaker explains that water uses and developments are not the biggest threats to water and wetland habitats. Based on reports of researchers, global warming plays a major role in wetland disappearance, and protecting these lands from human activities is not related to resisting against global warming effects.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, regarding, second, so, thus, well, as to, in addition, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1817.0 1373.03311258 132% => OK
No of words: 332.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47289156627 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64923807987 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575301204819 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 541.8 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.4803561596 49.2860985944 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.785714286 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7142857143 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.92857142857 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.419005121712 0.272083759551 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.137105105554 0.0996497079465 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0709950700922 0.0662205650399 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238429027344 0.162205337803 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.038418426267 0.0443174109184 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.68 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 63.6247240618 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.