In recent years, many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment. These drops in population and widespread extinction events have serious consequences for the ecosystems in which frogs live; for example, frogs help play a role in protecting humans by eating disease-carrying insects. Several methods have been proposed to solve the problem of declining frog populations.
First, if laws prohibited farmers from using harmful pesticides near sensitive frog populations, it would significantly reduce the harm those pesticides cause to these creatures. Frogs are being harmed by these chemicals used to prevent insects from damaging farm crops such as corn and sugarcane. Pesticides often spread from farmland into neighboring frog habitats. Once pesticides enter a frog’s body, they attack the nervous system, leading to severe breathing problems.
A second major factor in the reduction of frog populations is a fungus that has spread around the world with deadly effect. The fungus causes thickening of the skin, and since frogs use their skin to absorb water, infected frogs die of dehydration, which is a lack of sufficient water. Recently, researchers have discovered several ways to treat or prevent infection, including antifungal medication and treatments that kill the fungus with heat. Therefore, if anti-fungal treatments, are applied on a large scale, they would protect sensitive frog populations from infection.
Third, in a great many cases, frog populations are disappearing simply because their natural habitats are threatened. Since most frog species lay their eggs in water, they are dependent on water and wetlands, such as marshes. Many such habitats are threatened by human activities, including excessive water use or the draining of wetlands to make them suitable for development. Thus, if key water habitats, such as lakes and marshes, were better protected from excessive water use and development, many frog species would recover.
In the lecture, the professor discusses that there are problems with each of the suggested tactics to save frogs species. This casts doubt on the reading which states that the mentioned methods would be effective to solve the problem.
To begin with, the professor asserts that reducing pesticides usage is not economically practical. In fact, farmers rely on them to protect crops and help them stay competitive on the market. Moreover, if farmers live near the endangered frog populations must follow stricter roles of pesticides use, they would loss more crops and have a lower yield than competitor farmers. This contradicts the reading which claims that prohibiting the use of harmful pesticides would save frogs species.
In addition, the speaker argues that antifungal medication method has problems. Indeed, such treatments must be given to each frog, and that is not feasible. This is because frogs are hard to be captured. Furthermore, such method would not stop passing the infection to frog’s offspring; thus, they should administer the drug also, and that would cost a lot of money. This opposes the article which asserts that applying anti-fungal treatments would stop infection spread among frogs.
Finally, the speaker explains why stopping the excessive water use would not solve the issue. In fact, the biggest threat is global warming. This is because many wetlands had been drained due to its effect. Consequently, preventing human activates is unlikely to resolve the problem. This refutes the text which states that frogs’ natural habitats are endangered by humans’ endeavors.
In conclusion, the professor disagrees with the reading on all three points, and believes the text lacks credibility.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-30 | shadensaud4 | 35 | view |
| 2019-07-25 | shadensaud4 | 81 | view |
| 2019-07-25 | shadensaud4 | 3 | view |
- Because of climate change more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry unusable desert land There are many proposals about how to stop this process known as desertification A number of proposals involve 52
- Declines in Frog PopulationsIn recent years, many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment. These drops in population and widespread extinction events have serious consequences for the 3
- The cane toad is a large (1.8 kg) amphibian species native to Central and South America. It was deliberately introduced to Australia in 1935 with the expectation that it would protect farmers’ crops by eating harmful insects. Unfortunately, the toad mul 80
- In recent years, many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment. These drops in population and widespread extinction events have serious consequences for the ecosystems in which frogs l 35
- Because of climate change, more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry, unusable desert land. There are many proposals about how to stop this process, known as desertification. A number of proposals in 85
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
In the lecture, the professor discusses ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 223, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e market. Moreover, if farmers live near the endangered frog populations must fol...
^^
Line 4, column 302, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...follow stricter roles of pesticides use, they would loss more crops and have a lo...
^^
Line 8, column 396, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e endangered by humans' endeavors. In conclusion, the professor dis...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, furthermore, if, moreover, so, thus, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1484.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47601476015 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71517017368 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586715867159 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 427.5 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.849744103 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.2941176471 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9411764706 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.82352941176 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => 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: 0.107520583977 0.272083759551 40% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0334403251465 0.0996497079465 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0327622842199 0.0662205650399 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0540702183523 0.162205337803 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0291409646921 0.0443174109184 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.