The reading and the lecture are both about frog population decline and its reasons in recent years. While the author of the reading proposes three practical solutions to prevent frog population reduction, the professor refutes all the proposed methods. She states that neither are the solutions offered by the reading passage practical, nor are they effective. The lecturer casts doubt on the points made in the reading by providing three controversial reasons.
In the reading, the writer begins by saying that pesticides are so harmful and lethal for frogs, and if laws inhibited the farmers, whose farms are near the frogs' habitats, from using the pesticides, the problem of frog population decline would be solved. However, the professor disagrees with this idea. She asserts that prohibiting farmers from using pesticides is neither feasible nor fair. Farmers rely highly on pesticides to protect their crops and to grow them. Besides, if farmers living in proximity to the frogs' habitat did not have permission to use pesticides, they could not compete with other farmers who did not suffer from this strict regulation.
Furthermore, according to the text, the fungus is another reason for this phenomenon, and the frogs infected by fungus should be treated and cured. On the other hand, the professor points out that these treatments should be applied to each frog individually, and it is not practical to catch all the infected frogs and cure them. Also, these treatments will not pass to the frogs' offspring and the next generation, so the curing process has to be applied to the next generation as well, which is very expensive and sophisticated.
Finally, the author believes that the frog population has declined because of human activities and excessive water use. Not surprisingly, the professor rejects this assertion by contending that global warming, not the excessive use of water by humans, is the reason that frogs' habitats, such as lakes and marshes, have become dry over the past years. Although preventing people from using these waters is decent, it will not stop wetland areas from drying out caused by global warming.
To sum up, both the author and the lecturer hold conflicting views on why the frog population has declined over the past years.
- There is now evidence that the relaxed pace of life in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual wo 100
- Like many creatures humpback whales migrate long distances for feeding and mating purposes How animals manage to migrate long distances is often puzzling In the case of humpback whales we may have found the answer they may be navigating by the stars 60
- The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client Homes in the northeastern United States where winters are typically cold have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating Last year that region experienced t 58
- The following appeared in a health newsletter A ten year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets whereas today that number i 63
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Because modern life is very complex it is essential for young people to have the ability to plan and organize Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 517, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
..., if farmers living in proximity to the frogs habitat did not have permission to use ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 375, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
..., these treatments will not pass to the frogs offspring and the next generation, so t...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, finally, furthermore, however, if, so, well, while, as to, such as, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 7.30242825607 219% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 30.3222958057 155% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1914.0 1373.03311258 139% => OK
No of words: 371.0 270.72406181 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1590296496 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38877662729 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62170916685 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504043126685 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 570.6 419.366225166 136% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9120053633 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.625 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1875 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.9375 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.202959928452 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0654071833083 0.0996497079465 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.053064755021 0.0662205650399 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109601190655 0.162205337803 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0125114255563 0.0443174109184 28% => 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: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => 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: 12.94 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 63.6247240618 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.