inter 48
Both the reading and the lecture try to discuss some methods the reading mentioned to slow down the declining of frog's population. While the reading passage states three solutions and brings some extra information to support them, the lecturer finds all these ideas dubious and brings some evidence to refute them all.
First, the author argues that by prohibiting the farmers from using harmful pesticides, frog's populations will grow again due to the fact that these pesticides practically attack frogs and lead them to death. On the other hand, the speaker plays up with the fact that this action is not fair and feasible because many farmers rely on these pesticides for their crops, and their usage is necessary for the farmers in order to stay in the competition of food production.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that by doing some antifungal medication and treatments, people can overcome and kill the fungus that is responsible for the decline of frog's population. The fungus infects frogs and make their skins thicker, as a result, they cannot absorb the amount of water they need to survive. On the contrary, the professor brings up the fact that each frog species need a specific treatment not to be infected. Also, scientists need to fabricate distinct treatments and cares for the off-springs of these frogs owing to the fact that the same treatment is not pragmatic fot them. That means a huge amount of money needs to be spent and a plethora of complicated treatments need to be explored.
Last but not least, the reading asserts that by protecting frog's natural habitats such as wetlands from draining for farmer's usage, their population will grow again. Frogs need water sources to lay their eggs in water; they are dependent on these kinds of habitats. In contrast, the professor states casts doubt on this method owing to the truth that global warming is the main threat for these wetlands, also, for frog species. By protecting water habitats such as marshes, people cannot solve the problem of water shrinkage.
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'if', 'so', 'while', 'in contrast', 'such as', 'as a result', 'on the contrary', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.26329787234 0.261695866417 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.148936170213 0.158904122519 94% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0877659574468 0.0723426182421 121% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0292553191489 0.0435111971325 67% => OK
Pronouns: 0.031914893617 0.0277247811725 115% => OK
Prepositions: 0.119680851064 0.128828473217 93% => OK
Participles: 0.031914893617 0.0370669169778 86% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.50812583487 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0398936170213 0.0208969081088 191% => Less infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00797872340426 0.00154638098197 516% => OK
Determiners: 0.135638297872 0.128158765124 106% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0132978723404 0.0158828679856 84% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00265957446809 0.0114777025283 23% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2054.0 1645.83664459 125% => OK
No of words: 343.0 271.125827815 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.98833819242 6.08160592843 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.04852973271 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.332361516035 0.374372842146 89% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.247813411079 0.287516216867 86% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.166180758017 0.187439937562 89% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.122448979592 0.113142543107 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50812583487 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521865889213 0.539623497131 97% => OK
Word variations: 55.2690865867 53.8517498576 103% => OK
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0529801325 100% => OK
Sentence length: 26.3846153846 21.7502111507 121% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1616660042 49.3711431718 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.0 132.220823453 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3846153846 21.7502111507 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.923076923077 0.878197800319 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.39072847682 0% => OK
Readability: 51.1659564925 50.5018328374 101% => OK
Elegance: 1.9746835443 1.90840788429 103% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.549887131256 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.143761079471 0.142949733639 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0759676496404 0.0787303798458 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.632985606369 0.631733273073 100% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.127897719287 0.139662658121 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.266732575781 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.103435571967 0% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.434313315602 0.414875509568 105% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0667989618054 0.0530846634433 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.40443939384 0% => The content is off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0528353158467 0% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.26048565121 70% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 3.49668874172 114% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 3.1766004415 31% => OK
Total topic words: 8.0 10.2958057395 78% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.