frog population decline
The reading and the lecture are both about several solutions to impede or slow down the decline in frog population. Actually, the author believes that these frogs are advantageous for human life since they eat disease- carrying insects, and propose three solutions to help to hinder their demise. On the other hand, the professor is not convinced of this and casts doubt on each solution presented in the reading. Point to the other side of the story, he is of the opinion that none of these solutions can work out.
To begin with, the writer disputes that pesticides that farmers use in order to hider insects from damaging their crops is hazardous for frogs. To be more specific, pesticides impose severe breathing troubles to frogs and utilizing them in farmers near frog’s habitats should be restricted through strict laws. This specific argument is challenged by the professor. According to the professor, preventing farmers in lands adjacent to the frog’s habitats by regulations is not economically fair and feasible. Furthermore, she averts that since these farmers will lose more crops by not using pesticides, they will have less yield and experience disadvantageous in the competitive market.
Secondly, the writer argues that fungus is another devastating material which hurt frogs by thickening their skin and infect them. To delineate, special treatment should be applied in order to save frogs from dying as the result of dehydration caused by fungus. The lecturer, in the contrary, opposes this notion by asserting that these aforementioned treatments should be applied on each frog individually and performing it in a large scale is a very time consuming and complex procedure which is not practical. Moreover, she states that this infection passes through frogs off springs and the infants should be treated too.
Third, the reading states that frogs live and lay eggs in water and wetlands, where have been threatened by human activities. Therefore, by building wetland and preventing human from overusing water for personal aims such as irrigation, we can contribute to save frogs. In contrast, the lecturer’s stance is that human activities are not the most factor responsible for water disappearance. Also, the speaker puts forth to the idea that global warming is the most significant factor pertinent to water and wetland disappearance which can not be prevented by building habitats or decreasing human water consumption.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-12 | mraru | 80 | view |
| 2021-09-19 | zahra.tmmm | 80 | view |
| 2021-09-19 | zahra.tmmm | 80 | view |
| 2021-09-19 | zahra.tmmm | 80 | view |
| 2021-05-04 | talelaldabous | 76 | view |
- do you agree or disagree that athletes and entertainers deserve to have more privacy than what they have now. 60
- TPO 48- 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. 70
- It is commonly believed that in life success is not the most important thing it is more important to remain happy and optimistic when we fail Do you agree with that idea 90
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they are nowadays 80
- frog population decline 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 615, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... or decreasing human water consumption.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, furthermore, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, in contrast, such as, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 7.30242825607 219% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 30.3222958057 185% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2067.0 1373.03311258 151% => OK
No of words: 391.0 270.72406181 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28644501279 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83038753454 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 145.348785872 149% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552429667519 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 623.7 419.366225166 149% => 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: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9377116003 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.588235294 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.35294117647 7.06452816374 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
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: 0.166906037475 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0536480309453 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0599527279123 0.0662205650399 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0945595197959 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0397916759367 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 63.6247240618 182% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => 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: 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.