frog
Both the reading and listening discuss whether the declination of the frog population is solvable or not. The former argues that by controling three factors the frog population can be saved where the latter contradicts that none of the method discusses in the reading is practical to solve the problem.
First of all, the author contends that the chemical pestisides are contributing to the harmful attack to the frog nerve system and thus creating breathing problem that leads to death to the frog population. In contrast, the lecturer argues that, it is economically injustice for those farmers in certain area where the frog population are endangered to control their use of pesticides bacause this will create a huge crops loos fpoor them and they can not compete with other fermars who do not face such restriction.
Secondly, The reading asserts that, deadly fungus thicken the frog skins and since the frog use their skin to breath, they have serious health problem and hoping that by injecting antifungal medicin this problem can easily solve. However the professor rebuts that, it is extremely difficult to capture every individual frog and inject them the medici.Moreover, he adds that the injection do not confirm the protection of the upcomming gerenation from the fungus and thus the off spring also have to take the medicin which will be complicated and expensive.
Finally, the text claims that, the frog habitant that is the wather areas are in danger due to the heavy use oad draining and claims that by controling them the frog population can be saved. On the other hand, the listening counters that, the water land controling is not the perfect solution since the water lands are declining due to the global warming effect. He further argue that, without controling the global warming the water lands can not be saved so that the declining frog population.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-12-28 | S M Naimul Mamun | 70 | view |
| 2021-11-01 | ShayesteTR | 60 | view |
| 2019-11-04 | jinjingcarol | 66 | view |
| 2018-12-07 | Goomoni | 66 | view |
| 2018-10-28 | pershin_sh | 76 | view |
- submarine 80
- whales 60
- In the 1950s Torreya taxifolia, a type of evergreen tree once very common in the state of Florida, started to die out. No one is sure exactly what caused the decline, but chances are good that if nothing is done, Torreya will soon become extinct. Experts 86
- continent 11
- astro 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 231, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... medicin this problem can easily solve. However the professor rebuts that, it is extrem...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 352, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Moreover
...ividual frog and inject them the medici.Moreover, he adds that the injection do not conf...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 375, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[3]
Message: The pronoun 'He' must be used with a third-person verb: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...o the global warming effect. He further argue that, without controling the global war...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, in contrast, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.0286738351 172% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 43.0788530466 67% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 52.1666666667 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1573.0 1977.66487455 80% => OK
No of words: 312.0 407.700716846 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04166666667 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.48103885553 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58756691656 2.67179642975 97% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 212.727598566 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.522435897436 0.524837075471 100% => OK
syllable_count: 473.4 618.680645161 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 20.6003584229 44% => 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: 34.0 20.1344086022 169% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 68.9483614251 48.9658058833 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 174.777777778 100.406767564 174% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.6666666667 20.6045352989 168% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.5555555556 5.45110844103 249% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 11.8709677419 17% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.362849767713 0.236089414692 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.183752803324 0.076458572812 240% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0939034460843 0.0737576698707 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.239079607841 0.150856017488 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0192247753298 0.0645574589148 30% => 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: 19.6 11.7677419355 167% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.43 58.1214874552 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 10.1575268817 152% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 10.9000537634 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.01818996416 117% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 86.8835125448 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 10.0537634409 155% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.247311828 156% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.