The nutria is a large rodent, similar to a beaver, that typically weighs about 10 kilograms. These rodents usually live in semi-aquatic habitats, and though they originate from South America, they are now common in freshwater areas throughout North America. Nutria have become a significant problem due to their large numbers and voracious appetite, which leads to the destruction of natural and agricultural plantlife. In response to this issue, several solutions have been proposed. The first solution is to build fences to keep nutria out of their preferred habitats. Although nutria can chew through wooden fences using their long, sharp teeth, fences made out of sheet metal or metal wires can effectively prevent nutria from entering and damaging farms and gardens. Without access to ideal habitats, nutria would not be able to feed or breed as successfully, and their populations would decrease. The second way is to remove excess water from drainage. Farmers use artificial drainage such as large pipes buried in soil or ditches to drain water from their fields. This kind of drainage can make an attractive habitat for nutria because the damp conditions are ideal for the species. Removing the excess water from these sites could keep nutria from building homes and populating the areas near crops. The third method is to trap nutria. Trappers can set traps baited with carrots or sweet potatoes near nutria trails or tracks to catch and humanely eradicate them. Large-scale, sustained efforts using dogs to detect and track nutria in order to trap them in nature can greatly reduce their numbers as well. After catching nutria, they could be used for their fur or for their meat, which is high in protein and low in fat.
There is a ton of debate on how to reduce the number of nutrias because their immense population has destroyed nature and agriculture. More specifically, regarding the passages, the writer puts forth the idea that there are three possible solutions. In the listening passage, the lecturer rapidly points out the flaws in each of the claims given by the writer, and the professor believes that the methods proposed should not be used and addresses, in detail, the trouble with each point made in the reading text.
First and foremost, the author states metal wires could disrupt their habitat, slowly killing them. He explains that metal-wired fences would be effective since they cannot chew through them, but the lecturer takes issue with his claim by contending that they have sharp claws. It refers to the fact that they could use their anatomical feature to dig under the fences, making the idea of building one useless and unguaranteed.
One group of scholars, represented by the writer, thinks that draining the excess water is an alternative since they need to live in a wet environment. Of course, not all experts in this field agree that this would be successful. Again, the speaker addresses this point asserting that the farmers would continuously drain the area when rain fell. He goes on to say that the method is impossible to carry out in regions with low water levels; thus, the plan is unreasonable.
Finally, the author wraps his argument by positing that hunters can trap and eradicate them. He emphasizes that this method would be beneficial in numerous aspects, like using fur and meat for profit. In the class, the lecturer took note of a significant issue with this idea since it would be challenging to trap them individually. Besides, it would be a long process since they would need to specifically care for the pregnant ones, for they can produce thirteen babies per liter, and the majority of them are reported to have a wide range of parasites. For instance, the tapeworms make it an undesirable choice for the hunter to have close contact with or even consider the factor of selling their fur and meat.
To sum up, both the writer and professor hold contradictory views on how to reduce Nicaragua's population. Evidently, the counterattacks mentioned in the lecture effectively challenge the writer. It is also clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on this subject.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-12-18 | amchoi0810 | 3 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject 78
- Humans have been battling the tropical disease malaria since at least the late fourth century B C This debilitating and deadly disease is actually a parasite which reproduces in humans and is spread through the saliva of mosquitoes when they suck blood fr 81
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject 90
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is better for people to choose jobs that come with high salaries even though they do not enjoy doing it than to choose jobs that they enjoy but come with low salaries 90
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 307, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'trapping'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'challenge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: trapping
...this idea since it would be challenging to trap them individually. Besides, it would be...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, first, if, regarding, so, thus, for instance, of course, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 5.04856512141 317% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 22.412803532 196% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 30.3222958057 185% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2020.0 1373.03311258 147% => OK
No of words: 405.0 270.72406181 150% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98765432099 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.04702891845 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65083779494 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 145.348785872 159% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57037037037 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 616.5 419.366225166 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3547486766 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.222222222 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.27777777778 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => 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: 0.0672112841885 0.272083759551 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0211724744831 0.0996497079465 21% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0276750583957 0.0662205650399 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0398220468693 0.162205337803 25% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0206802447607 0.0443174109184 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 63.6247240618 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.