TPO48
The author provides some methods, by means of which human being is able to protect (conserve) frog from extinction. The professor, however, refutes the claim, since he believes that these approaches are not practical.
First, the author suggests prohibiting the use of pesticides in farming areas, especially in the adjacency of frog population. Nevertheless, the lecturer thinks the proposed method is not economically fair due to the fact that it is too cumbersome to force the farmers to follow such restricted rules, while in other regions farmers have the chance of utilizing these pesticides.
Second method is applying the antifungal medication in order to decrease the danger of fungus, spreading throughout the world. On the contrary, the professor rejects this approach by pointing out two major reasons. Firstly, according to the research, the treatment should be done for each individual frog which seems hard (arduous) in practice. Secondly, even if the treatment is a helpful one, it cannot help the offspring. This translates into that the treatment does not pass from one generation to the next; consequently, it must be done permanently and constantly. For these reasons, this method is very time-consuming and costs too high.
Third and final possible solution is protecting the habitats that frogs live in. These habitats, mainly including wetlands and lakes, are usually in hazard of human activity. Nonetheless, the lecturer confirms the general idea but believes that it is not the major problem in this issue. The main problematic matter is the global warming which threatens numerous places and habitats throughout the world. The professor proposes it is less likely that human beings can solve this problem easily and instantly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 510, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...olve this problem easily and instantly.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, firstly, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, third, while, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1485.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38043478261 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81494225802 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.615942028986 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 444.6 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.5529648628 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.0 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.4 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258324491352 0.272083759551 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0758638575863 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0645322117962 0.0662205650399 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146943552687 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0107331598544 0.0443174109184 24% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.33 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.