The article discusses three methods have been proposed to solve the problem of declining frog populations, and provides three reasons of support. Conversely, the professor states that none of these methods offer practical solution to protect frog populations and she refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that farmers should be prohibited from using harmful pesticides that harmed frogs populations. However, the professor opposes this point by saying that these laws could be economically impractical, and are not fair to farmers. She explains that by doing prohibition laws on using pesticides, farmers would yield low crops. Also, only farmers who live nearby frogs populations would suffer from losing their crops, while others are not affected. Therefore, these laws have severe disadvantages to farmers.
Second, the article avers that if antifungal medications have applied to frogs, would protect sensitive frog populations from getting infected by fungus, which cause their skin to dry, and consequently, die out from dehydration. The professor, on the other hand, explains there are some problems with this idea, for instance, the antifungal treatment should be apply individually. This means, we have to catch and treat each frog from getting the infection, to do so is extremely difficult. Moreover, the professor says, in order to prevent fungus infection from spread to new generations, we have to apply the treatment individually to them. For the reason that this infection is pass to next generation through offspring. As a result, this method is going to be complicated and so expensive.
Third, the reading posits that frogs populations would recover, if water habitats for them were protected from excessive water and development. The professor disagrees with point by stating that though this idea is pretty good, unfortunately, it would not save frogs populations. The biggest threat to frogs populations is global warming. And so, disappeared of waters, lakes, or marshes habitats would unlikely to make any decline to frog populations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 198, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...point by saying that these laws could be economically impractical, and are not fa...
^^
Line 5, column 362, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'applied'?
Suggestion: applied
...nce, the antifungal treatment should be apply individually. This means, we have to ca...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, conversely, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, third, while, for instance, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => 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: 1772.0 1373.03311258 129% => OK
No of words: 322.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50310559006 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86449903677 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580745341615 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 524.7 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.3024962172 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.235294118 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9411764706 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.41176470588 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 0.487915758417 0.272083759551 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.152387397408 0.0996497079465 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105556593176 0.0662205650399 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.292878891497 0.162205337803 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0702570121596 0.0443174109184 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.