In this set of materials, the reading passage explores the methods to slow down the declination of frog populations, and the professor's lecture deals with the same topic. However, she casts doubts on these ways. And in the lecture, she provides three specific points to substantiate her opinion.
To begin with, even though the reading passage suggests that government should establish related regulations to prohibit farmers from using toxic pesticides which have deadly effects on frogs near frog habitats, the professor argues in the lecture that this is neither feasible nor economical. This is because if farmers are not allowed to use pesticides on their crops, they cannot compete with other cheaper crops which used pesticides in production. As a result, farms will not gain profits from their crops, and this will be a great loss in economy. Clearly, professor's argument refutes its counterpart in the reading.
Moreover, despite the statement in the reading that antifungal medicine could be used to cure fungus-infected frogs, the professor contends that capturing and applying medicine to every infected frogs are difficult and require huge efforts. She supports this point with the fact that the treatment will not pass down through genes to frogs' offspring; therefore, they still need extra efforts to catch frogs and apply medicines on them.
Finally, the author of the reading claims that human activities damage frogs' habitats via developing wetlands, whereas the professor asserts that it is global warming, rather than human activities, that compromise their habitats. Then she explains that this claim is indefensible by pointing out that due to global warming, water and wetlands are declining, and not only frogs but also several species are disappearing. Hence, restricting the use of water or wetlands will not change the fact that frogs along with other species are under extinction.
The passage explained about
The passage explained about decreasing and the extinction of frog that will treat the ecosystems and mankind; the passage then gives some solution for preventing this phenomenon. However, the lecture challenges these solutions and illustrates that these are not practical solutions because of some reasons.
First, the reading explains about Pesticide that is a chemical material for preventing insects to hurt the farms that attack the frog's body and cause breathing disease. The passage believes that the government should prohibit using this chemical material for preserving frogs. The lecture in contrary to the reading, states that preventing farmers to use these chemical materials is not economically practical and has many disadvantages for farmers consequently they will lose their crops.
Second, the lecture states that fungus that is spread in the world is very harmful to frogs and thicken their skin and prevent water absorption. Also mentions that this disease can be treated by heating that is the result of new research. The lecture is opposed to this idea and illustrates that this treatment is not practical because of two reasons. First, this method must apply to each frog individually and second, this treatment should be done on each new generation, therefore this will be extremely expensive.
Third, the passage blames the overusing of water by people and making buildings on lands and states that this cause the drought of frog's habitats. On the other hand, the professor's opinion in the lecture is that water use is not a great problem, but the main reason is the global warming. The professor also mentions that if people use less water and do not make buildings, the habitats of frog continue to dry because of global warming.
Finally, the professor believes that the solutions in the passage are not practical because they are not economically useful and global warming is the main reason for the extinction of frogs.
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'whereas', 'as a result', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.24776119403 0.261695866417 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.164179104478 0.158904122519 103% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0716417910448 0.0723426182421 99% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0477611940299 0.0435111971325 110% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0388059701493 0.0277247811725 140% => OK
Prepositions: 0.137313432836 0.128828473217 107% => OK
Participles: 0.0358208955224 0.0370669169778 97% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.66063802744 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0298507462687 0.0208969081088 143% => OK
Particles: 0.0089552238806 0.00154638098197 579% => OK
Determiners: 0.089552238806 0.128158765124 70% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0208955223881 0.0158828679856 132% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00597014925373 0.0114777025283 52% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1908.0 1645.83664459 116% => OK
No of words: 301.0 271.125827815 111% => OK
Chars per words: 6.33887043189 6.08160592843 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04852973271 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.388704318937 0.374372842146 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.325581395349 0.287516216867 113% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.225913621262 0.187439937562 121% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.132890365449 0.113142543107 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66063802744 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601328903654 0.539623497131 111% => OK
Word variations: 66.852007647 53.8517498576 124% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0529801325 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0833333333 21.7502111507 115% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.1366681099 49.3711431718 148% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.0 132.220823453 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0833333333 21.7502111507 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.16666666667 0.878197800319 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.39072847682 0% => OK
Readability: 57.6414728682 50.5018328374 114% => OK
Elegance: 1.67857142857 1.90840788429 88% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.529112353384 0.549887131256 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.124713345482 0.142949733639 87% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0717908167581 0.0787303798458 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.585155531587 0.631733273073 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.175059032179 0.139662658121 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.211723225372 0.266732575781 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0876021607618 0.103435571967 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.328714540401 0.414875509568 79% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.025058556472 0.0530846634433 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.350039003692 0.40443939384 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0292902679673 0.0528353158467 55% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.26048565121 70% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 3.49668874172 86% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.62251655629 110% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 3.1766004415 94% => OK
Total topic words: 10.0 10.2958057395 97% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 80 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24 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.