TPO61
In terms whether solutions to help golden frogs to overcome the problem brought by fungus are effective or not, the arguments mentioned in the reading are all disputed by the lecturer.
It is first suggested that humans can introduce a type of bacterium which can produce certain chemicals to golden frog's skins so that they can be protected from fungus infection. However, the lecturer argues that this solution does not work out in a long term. As a matter fact, such type of bacterium does produce a chemical that kills fungus, but it only does this at the beginning of its colonization. In other words, protection brought by them to golden frog is temporary. With time going by, it stops to secrete chemicals and golden frog can be infected again.
Second, as the reading suggests, golden frogs that have been in captivity before can be released into the area where wild golden frogs have died out so that they can live healthily. However, the lecturer claims that this solution is not viable at all. In fact, although the golden frogs infected with fungus have been died out, there are other animals that carry such fungus. In this case, those released golden frogs will be exposed to such fungus and then get infected with it. As a result, they are not able to live healthily.
Third, the reading shows that a natural defense can help those frogs to heat themselves and thus slow down the growing of the fungus, which might help to increase the whole population.
However, the lecturer maintains that such natural mechanism has drawbacks. In order to work this mechanism, golden frogs have to consume considerable energy, which might weaken their immune system. In this case, they can get infected with other detrimental fungus or bacteria easily and then might die. Eventually, never will their populations increase significantly.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, then, third, thus, in fact, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1538.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96129032258 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46250551323 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493548387097 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 464.4 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.7942067843 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.125 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.375 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.575842119568 0.272083759551 212% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.191022357882 0.0996497079465 192% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.126887835674 0.0662205650399 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.320711047822 0.162205337803 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116669382634 0.0443174109184 263% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.