tpo15
The author and lecturer offer two opposing views on the side-effects of various measures proposed to halt the separation of the cane toad in the Australia. While the passage lists some methods to tackle this situation and reduce its population, the professor counters these specific methods and presents some clues to call into the question for the information in the reading passage.
First of all, the professor refutes the efficiency of a national fence which in the reading part is named as one of the possible methods; inasmuch as it has a cogent effect in the restriction of rabbits population in Australia. The lecturer states that there are many streams of water; in addition, the eggs and the young cane toads live in the water. Thus, their population can extend in the land for the sake of the water flaws in the land, where the national fences are ineffective in their route.
Next, the passage mentions the volunteers’ campaign which can capture and destroy this animal, since it can be caught easily. The lecturer casts doubt on the truth of this claim. As she asserts, this animal quite resembles a native frog in Australia. Moreover, these volunteers do have no fundament knowledge of distinguishing the native frog and the cane toad. Consequently, this campaign can be considered as one of the threats.
Finally, the professor argues that the disease-causing virus will be effective. Meanwhile, the passage nominated it as one of the adequate options to decline the population of cane toad. Based on the lecturer's information, this animal is one of the native animals in the America; besides, the transportation of this animal by the scientists or the pet collectors, to the America, this virus can contaminate its population in the America, where is its natural habitat, and its extinction will unbalance the ecosystem of America.
That how, the professor effectively challenges the claim made in the article.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 201, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...e population of cane toad. Based on the lecturers information, this animal is one of the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'thus', 'while', 'in addition', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.27731092437 0.261695866417 106% => OK
Verbs: 0.114845938375 0.158904122519 72% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0504201680672 0.0723426182421 70% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0252100840336 0.0435111971325 58% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0280112044818 0.0277247811725 101% => OK
Prepositions: 0.128851540616 0.128828473217 100% => OK
Participles: 0.0224089635854 0.0370669169778 60% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.90128042562 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0140056022409 0.0208969081088 67% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.182072829132 0.128158765124 142% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0196078431373 0.0158828679856 123% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0140056022409 0.0114777025283 122% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1941.0 1645.83664459 118% => OK
No of words: 318.0 271.125827815 117% => OK
Chars per words: 6.10377358491 6.08160592843 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04852973271 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.35534591195 0.374372842146 95% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.292452830189 0.287516216867 102% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.232704402516 0.187439937562 124% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.138364779874 0.113142543107 122% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90128042562 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518867924528 0.539623497131 96% => OK
Word variations: 53.4327259943 53.8517498576 99% => OK
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0529801325 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.7142857143 21.7502111507 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.0156358363 49.3711431718 156% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.642857143 132.220823453 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7142857143 21.7502111507 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.785714285714 0.878197800319 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.39072847682 29% => OK
Readability: 51.9595687332 50.5018328374 103% => OK
Elegance: 2.55 1.90840788429 134% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.688135280845 0.549887131256 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.149893347844 0.142949733639 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0739602496054 0.0787303798458 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.696750588447 0.631733273073 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.179686820912 0.139662658121 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.359156991333 0.266732575781 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117021729465 0.103435571967 113% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.502448332087 0.414875509568 121% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0587744496579 0.0530846634433 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.494516056855 0.40443939384 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100142579871 0.0528353158467 190% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.26048565121 94% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 3.49668874172 143% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 3.1766004415 126% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 10.2958057395 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.