The article and the speech are both about the conservation of golden frogs, which are suffering from a kind of fungus. While the author of the article lists three theories that could protect the frog, the professor in the speech casts doubt on all the theories. She maintains the theories won't work as expected.
First of all, according to the reading, since a type of bacterium is a natural enemy of the fungus that threatens the frog, people could take advantage of this bacterium. Although the professor admits that the bacterium does have a positive effect on the frog, the effect will not last. Actually, she continues to say that the bacterium will work against the fungus during the early stage.
Secondly, the writer holds an opinion that people could breed frogs in captivity because it could save the frogs from the fungus. Unfortunately, the lecturer disagrees with the stance of the writer. She states the frogs from captivity would still catch the fungus by contacting other natural frogs, who are constantly suffering from the fungus.
At last, the passage asserts that, based on the fact that frogs could overcome the fungus by heating up themselves, researchers could trust the frogs' own power. However, the professor challenges the speculation and points out that this so-called natural protection has drawbacks. She puts forward by saying that heating up themselves would make the frog physically weak and sensitive to other illnesses, which might cause death.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, however, second, secondly, so, still, while, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1245.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 243.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12345679012 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94822203886 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50486495095 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.559670781893 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 356.4 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.3122912866 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.75 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.25 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.91666666667 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.397448213618 0.272083759551 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.13378689809 0.0996497079465 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0893869614275 0.0662205650399 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234709150515 0.162205337803 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.056788663241 0.0443174109184 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.