tpo-48
In the reading, the author proposes 3 methods to address the problem of declining frog populations. However, finding all solutions impractical and implausible, the lecturer totally disputes them and presents some evidence to the contrary.
At first, the author argues that pesticides used by farmers to prevent insects from harming crops can cause breathing problems for frogs. If the law prohibits using these chemicals, it will be helpful. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that this approach is not economically practical and fair. Forcing farmers to not using pesticides against harmful insects may lead to reduction in their production; thus, they can not compete with other farmers who are allowed to use pesticides and prevent insects from damaging crops.
In addition, the reading passage holds the view that fungus causes thickening of the frogs' skin and then infect them. Antifungal treatment would protect sensitive frog populations from infection. That being said, the lecturer disputes this method by clarifying the fact that this kind of medication and treatment must be applied to each frog individually. Capturing individual frogs and treat them would not be practical especially when they are in a large scale. Moreover, this treatment should be applied again and again on each frog generation. Hence, it is an expensive approach.
Finally, the author draws attention to protecting crucial water habitats such as lakes from excessive water use as the last method to solve the problem if frog decline. Yet again, the lecturer dismisses it by pointing out that actually water use and development by human is not a gig threathen. As a matter of fact, climate change such as global warming makes the water habitats undergo drought. Consequently, protecting lakes and marches from human water use would not be very useful and effective.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, consequently, conversely, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, in addition, kind of, such as, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1567.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31186440678 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72647336226 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589830508475 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 470.7 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.9004555785 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.9375 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4375 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5625 7.06452816374 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.4632320465 0.272083759551 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14213138186 0.0996497079465 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101682745014 0.0662205650399 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.235578260415 0.162205337803 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0753898798342 0.0443174109184 170% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.