TPO48
The professor revises the idea presented in the passage about the three possible solutions to help saving frog populations and refutes each of the points made in the passage.
First of all, the reading passage suggests that some new laws should be defined to restrict the use of harmful pesticides near frog populations. The professor opposes this idea. She believes that the aforementioned approach is not economically practical and fair. The professor holds this view because the farmers should follow strict laws to use those specific types of pesticides, and it would be very hard for them to stay in competition with other farmers. Hence, the first method does not seem to be a practical solution for the main problem pointed out in the text.
Secondly, the professor's opinion contradicts the second method mentioned in the text that heat treatments should be exploited to kill the harmful fungi on a large scale. She clarifies that the treatment should be used individually on every single frog, and it would be very difficult to capture all the frogs in a special habitat and impose the treatment on them. Besides, frogs cannot pass the treatment to their offspring. As a result, applying this method could be very expensive. Therefore, the second explanation has some deficiencies regarding the main point of the passage.
Finally, the author states that frogs' natural habitat should be better protected against the excessive use of water by human activities. Conversely, the professor explains that the biggest threat to the frogs' habitats is not human activities. In fact, the ongoing changes that global warming causes to nature has the greatest effects on their habitats. Thus, the third approach is not convincing, too.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 100, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to save' or 'save'.
Suggestion: to save; save
...ut the three possible solutions to help saving frog populations and refutes each of th...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 15, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...ointed out in the text. Secondly, the professors opinion contradicts the second method m...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hird approach is not convincing, too.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, conversely, finally, first, hence, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thus, in fact, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1463.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18794326241 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69677995052 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570921985816 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 436.5 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 51.2453791955 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.5333333333 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.26666666667 7.06452816374 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.308741510058 0.272083759551 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0963598535988 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0870784635963 0.0662205650399 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186455547276 0.162205337803 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631427391177 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.