Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments presented in the reading passage.
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.
The writer proposes that to protect frogs' life, there is some solution to keep frogs living, however, the speaker claims some disadvantage at solve the problem of declining grog population.
The writer first claims that the pesticides, used by the farmer to create more crops, might make the frog's population decline that farmers should decline the use of pesticides. Nevertheless, the speaker refutes the writer's statement and claims that the proposal is wrong. The lecturer claims that although the farmer declines the usage of pesticides, the farmer might force to decline the crop and that is not fair. Since the frog's population becomes restore, the farmer needs to lose their crops.
The author also says the fungus, spread around the world, will make frog cannot absorbing water that people should kill the fungus. This statement still rejected by the lecturer and indicates that the solution is no use and a waste of time. Since the speaker says the funges are spread around the world that is hard to eliminate. Also, people need to find the frog to take off the fungus on their skin. However, people need to repeat this solution year by year because the fungus will thicken on frogs' skin again and again.
In the beginning, the writer still claims that the prescription, protect the frog's habitat, will solve the problem of declining frog population. This statement also overthrows by the speaker and states that the most important to treat the frog's habitat is global warming that declines the water to make some species extinct, so the solution to keep wetlands and water in the lake cannot recover the frog's population.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 102, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...er to create more crops, might make the frogs population decline that farmers should ...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 215, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
.... Nevertheless, the speaker refutes the writers statement and claims that the proposal ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 374, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'declining'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'force' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: declining
...e of pesticides, the farmer might force to decline the crop and that is not fair. Since th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 426, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...he crop and that is not fair. Since the frogs population becomes restore, the farmer ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 241, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...solution is no use and a waste of time. Since the speaker says the funges are spread ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 78, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...aims that the prescription, protect the frogs habitat, will solve the problem of decl...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 239, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...es that the most important to treat the frogs habitat is global warming that declines...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 399, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...nd water in the lake cannot recover the frogs population.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, still
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1362.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98901098901 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36480861131 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 124.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.454212454212 0.540411800872 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9924763277 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.5 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.75 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.08333333333 7.06452816374 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.129609880935 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0529101700815 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0242629938695 0.0662205650399 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0809803379394 0.162205337803 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0189552478129 0.0443174109184 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 63.6247240618 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.