In recent years, many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment. These population declines and extinctions 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, frogs are being harmed by pesticides, which are 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. If laws prohibited the farmers from using harmful pesticides near sensitive frog populations, it would significantly reduce the harm pesticides cause to frogs.
A second major factor in frog population decline 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. Recently, researchers have discovered several ways to treat or prevent infection, including antifungal medication and treatments that kill the fungus with heat. Those treatments, if applied on a large scale, would protect sensitive frog populations from infection.
Third, in a great many cases, frog populations are in decline simply because their natural habitats are threatened. Since most frog species lay their eggs in water, they are dependent on water and wetland habitats. Many such habitats are threatened by human activities, including excessive water use or the draining of wetlands to make them suitable for development. If key water habitats such as lakes and marshes were better protected from excessive water use and development, many frog species would recover.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific methods proposed in the reading passage.
The passage emerges the problem of declining of frogs’ populations in the wild. Since their disappearance will lead to problems which affect humankind, the passage mainly provides some methods which will be able to turn the situation to better. However, the lecturer has an opposite opinion by saying that all these methods are useless.
At first, the passage presents of the idea to put restrictions on farmers who use pesticides at their farms situated near frog habitats. There is information that they will lead to serious damages in frog bodies. Otherwise, the lecturer controversies this method; she says that it will be economically unfair for farmers. The main reason why she thinks so is that farmers use pesticides for killing dangerous insects, in the case of strict limitations they may lose all their crops.
The next method described in the passage is a new treatment of a fungus – the disease which reduces the population of frogs. Controversially, the lecturer says that this new healing method will not help to improve the situation. She says a lot of disadvantages in this as the complexity to treat every frog individually; the treatment has to be repeated for every future generation. Thus, this method is expensive.
The last method described in the passage is that people have to protect the places of frog locations which are lakes, rivers. Since these places are affected negatively by human activities, the strict rules must be accepted. Again the lecturer does not think this idea is great, because she says that such places most of all are in danger of depleting because of global warming rather than people actions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 416, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ration. Thus, this method is expensive. The last method described in the passage...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 407, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...bal warming rather than people actions.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, may, so, thus, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 0.0 7.30242825607 0% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1389.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08791208791 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76532274586 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545787545788 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 426.6 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.088596385 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2142857143 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.57142857143 7.06452816374 36% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => 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: 0.143262613154 0.272083759551 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0543916228406 0.0996497079465 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0459527408927 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0886074098959 0.162205337803 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0229079275022 0.0443174109184 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.