Ways to prevent frogs from extinction
The passage and the talk both discuss the declining in the population of frogs and the methods to prevent their extinction. The writer contends that by implementing some works like legislating new rules in using pesticides, using some drugs for fungus treatment, and also eliciting less water by humans we can save these frogs from dying out. The lecturer, however, refutes the author's assessments. She demonstrates three reason to cast doubt on the claim made in the reading.
The first allegation of the script against which the orator argues is that one of the threats to the frogs is the pesticides used by farmers and new strict rules should restrict the usage of these chemical materials. In contrast, the professor highlights the fact that it would not be economical and functional, because ultimate cost of harvests would increase. She further asserts that this would be disadvantage for the farming and they could not keep the pace of competing with other farms, which have not been imposed by these laws.
Second, according to the text, another deadly element for the frogs is fungus, and we should use some treatments for them; although the speaker finds this idea debatable. She bolsters her opinion by stating that this remedy should use for every single frog. Therefore in that large scale it would be difficult to carry out, and is not practical. Furthermore, this drug do not pass to their offspring, and it must be use again for the next generation one by one.
Lastly, the lecture contradicts this fallacy of the passage that frogs' habitat is threatening by human activities like overusing of water resources, saying that the major factor which endangers their residence is global warming.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 344, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...we can save these frogs from dying out. The lecturer, however, refutes the authors ...
^^^
Line 3, column 258, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...emedy should use for every single frog. Therefore in that large scale it would be difficu...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, second, so, therefore, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1429.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03169014085 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5872088384 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591549295775 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 427.5 419.366225166 102% => 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: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.3693564157 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.083333333 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.75 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.111160236842 0.272083759551 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0387456449057 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0476725067469 0.0662205650399 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0673898744338 0.162205337803 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0437797173032 0.0443174109184 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.23 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.