Tpo 48
Question: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific methods proposed in the reading passage.
The reading and the listening materials have a debate on what has caused reduction in frog population. The penman puts forward 3 main hypothesizes, which has refuted by the following orator.
First of all, the writer suggests that pesticides used for preventing insects negative effects on farms damage to nervous system of frogs. As a result, by not using those chemicals their health could not be effected. On the contrary, the speaker views this issue from an opposite angle. According to her, if the farmers don not apply chemicals for cultivating their products, they will suffer economically and lose more crops. It is not advisable that government ban them for using pesticides.
The second point offered by the author is that not only fungus have caused frogs'skin become thick in obtaining water, but they also have dismissed them because of sever dehydration. Thus, it is needed for anti fungal remedies. On the other hand, the professor casts doubt on this assumption by saying that this medication is very complicated and expensive, because it is not possible to perform it on both each of frogs in large scale and their new future generations.
Last, the reading passage proposes that if we better protect frog's habitat such as wet lands, lakes and etc. we would prevent from their declining. However, the lecturer holds a different view. She explains that limit wetlands are not important problem in decreasing frog's population. Global warming is more serious factor in this relation. Unfortunately, it is not offered effective solution for this problem yet.
In all, the ideas mentioned in the speech counter the opinions in the text because of 3 basic reasons including not having economically benefits by elimination of pesticides, not being practical treatment of each frogs, and danger of increasing of world temperature.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 101, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
... frogs habitat such as wet lands, lakes and etc. we would prevent from their declining. ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, thus, such as, as a result, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => 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: 1561.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22073578595 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75177068834 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 145.348785872 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.632107023411 0.540411800872 117% => OK
syllable_count: 473.4 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 65.0212634904 49.2860985944 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.8235294118 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5882352941 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.330328887265 0.272083759551 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0829482867223 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0553217507109 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147623743961 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0554530604015 0.0443174109184 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.