TPO48
In the passage, the author mentions that many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment and brings up three methods that have been proposed to solve the problem of declining frog populations. However, the professor contends that the passage does not offer practicing solutions and refutes each of them.
At first, the passage holds the view that frogs are harmed by pesticides, which are used to prevent insects from damaging farm crops. If laws prohibited the farmers from using harmful pesticides near sensitive frog populations, it would significantly reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs. The professor, on the other hand, believes that this solution is not economically practical or fair, since farmers rely on their crops and they will lose their crops comparing to other farmers that are not near frog populations. If they follow these restricting regulations, they will have lower yield comparing to other competing farmers.
Additionally, the writer mentions that one factor in frog population decline is a fungus that has spread around the world with deadly effect. They cause thickening of skin in frog and therefore infected frogs can not absorb water with their skin and they will die of dehydration. Killing of thoe fungus with heat and antifungal medication would protect frog population from infection. Nevertheless, the professor point out that there are two problems with that solution. At first they should find and kill each of them individually and since they are in a large scale, it is hard to capture them and treat them. Also, they should apply this treatment again and again for new generations and therefore it would be complicated and expensive.
Finally, the author suggests that frog population decline simply because their natural habitats are threatened. If key water habitats were better protected from extensive water use and developement, many frog species would recover. On the contrary, the professor states that this is a good idea but it does not save frog population. Water and wetlands are not the biggest treat. Global warning has caused problems on wetlands and prohibiting human activities of water and wetland habitats is unlikely to changes problems caused by global warming.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, therefore, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 7.30242825607 260% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1943.0 1373.03311258 142% => OK
No of words: 369.0 270.72406181 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26558265583 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67106133132 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 145.348785872 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.536585365854 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 584.1 419.366225166 139% => 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
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.1737263518 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.294117647 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7058823529 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05882352941 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 4.45695364238 292% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.636105736234 0.272083759551 234% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.193391226136 0.0996497079465 194% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.134578489844 0.0662205650399 203% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.366669602969 0.162205337803 226% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0452624009836 0.0443174109184 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 63.6247240618 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.