The article and the lecture are about frog species which present a decline in their population due to several changes in their environment. The author in the reading believes that the consequences of declining frog population can be solved by some methods proposed in the article. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made by the author. She thinks that these techniques may be practical at all.
First, the author claims that due to the fact that pesticides harm frogs in several environments in which they used by farmers, a practical solution would be to prohibit the use of this type of chemicals by farming. Nevertheless, this idea is challenged by the lecturer. She argues that this possible solution would be not economic and produce a decrease of competition in marketing because farmers who follow this law, may have more disadvantages than those who continue using pesticides in their crops.
Second, the article posits that another solution for the decline of frog population would be a treatment that kills fungus with heat because they cause dehydration among frogs and eventually end in death. Nonetheless, the lecturer rebuts this proposal by saying that the application of this treatment would be complicated. Furthermore, she points out that this solution involves to catch every frog in an environment and also this treatment should be applied several times since it would be beneficial for each generation.
Finally, the author mentions that the decline of the frog population is because of human activities. Therefore, she states that controlling excessive water use and development may be a practical solution. The lecturer, on the other hand, puts forth the idea that the biggest cause of this issue is global warming. So, these methods are unlikely to improve the frog population’ decline unless global warming changes.
- The author professes that Agnostids were arthropods and proposes three theories about how they lived based on the fossil records. However, the professor finds the ideas implausible and expresses a profound disagreement by elaborating on the fact that the 80
- Glass is a favored building material for modern architecture, yet it is also very dangerous for wild birds. Because they often cannot distinguish between glass and open air, millions of birds are harmed every year when they try to fly through glass window 61
- Friendships are considered to be the most important aspect of your entire life. There are different opinions about these relationships. Some people prefer having a lot of friends for a short period of time while others prefer having a small number of frie 70
- Undoubtedly, technology has changed our lives in several ways. One of the most important advances has been in terms of communication. Currently, people have the facility to be aware of what is happening worldwide. Therefore, I personally believe that is i 75
- TPO 51Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Movies and television have more negative effects than positive effects on the way young people behave. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 88
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 422, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... decline unless global warming changes.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 5.01324503311 399% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1565.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23411371237 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83854490298 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531772575251 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 484.2 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4141773006 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.785714286 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3571428571 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.64285714286 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206387506522 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0801707994605 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0898971468921 0.0662205650399 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138397732667 0.162205337803 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0659487994453 0.0443174109184 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => 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: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.