TPO48
In the reading section, the writer claims that there are several methods to solve problem of declining frog populations; however, in the lecture, the professor completely refutes all the reading points by presenting some reasons and examples.
First of all, the writer claims that laws which would prohibit the farmers from using harmful pesticides near sensitive frog populations can solve the problem; on the other hand, the professor takes issue with this statement and states that it is not fair since these farmers would not be able to compete with other farmers in the market; inasmuch as these prohibitive laws would cause a substantial decrease in their crops.
Moreover, the writer also indicates that there are treatments that can kill the fungus causing thickening of the frogs' skin, which has a deadly effect on them; in contrast, the lecture again rejects this statement and explains that the treatments should be applied on each individual. Besides, the treatments have to be applied again and again on each new generation. Therefore, he is of the opinion that it is too expensive a way.
In addition, the writer also manifests that were water habitats better protected from excessive water use; a good many frog species would recover; on the contrary, the lecture material is again against this belief and declares that natural habitats are threatened mostly because of global warming; as a result, even better protecting of water habitats would not solve the problems which frogs have confronted.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, in addition, in contrast, as a result, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1279.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 245.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22040816327 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95632099841 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56146433546 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.559183673469 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 386.1 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 13.0662251656 46% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 40.0 21.2450331126 188% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 141.402105909 49.2860985944 287% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 213.166666667 110.228320801 193% => OK
Words per sentence: 40.8333333333 21.698381199 188% => OK
Discourse Markers: 24.5 7.06452816374 347% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More 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: 0.408281229231 0.272083759551 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.157492961074 0.0996497079465 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.122062954604 0.0662205650399 184% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.218301657862 0.162205337803 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100113616781 0.0443174109184 226% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 23.6 13.3589403974 177% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.88 53.8541721854 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.9 11.0289183223 171% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.88 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.07 8.42419426049 120% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 28.0 10.7273730684 261% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 18.0 10.498013245 171% => OK
text_standard: 28.0 11.2008830022 250% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.