Declining frog populations
The population of frogs has increasingly declined in recent years. The passage proposes three approaches to address this problem, including forbid pesticides, treat forgs' skin, and protect their habitats. But the lecture considers them unconvincing.
The passage begins by arguing that reducing the usage of pesticides would greatly helpful to decrase the harmfulness to forgs, as many frogs were killed by chemical components. Nevertheless, the lecture counters this, pointing out that this policy is not fair for farmers, since pesticides are indispensible for farmers to reduce the amount of inserts and increase their yields. Without pesticides, those farmers who are forbidden to use pesticides could not the same competative as farmers in other areas. Therefore, the assertion of the passage sound unreasoning.
Furthermore, the passage assumes that some novel technologies can serve as approaches to treat frogs' skin and prevent them from desiccated. The lecture, however, suggests this may not be merited by the evidence. Although this novel treatment is obviously helpful for single frog, it cannot be expanded into larger areas. Given the population of frogs, it is extremely expensive and impossible to treat all of them, not even on their heirs. The passage cannot bolster the recommendation without ruling out the refutation.
Last but not the least important, even if the evidence turns out to support the passage that reducing the human impact to frogs' habitats could directly contribuate to their population, one critical truth is being left out of consideration. The lecture points out the passage neglect the fact that the main and most significant reason for the disappear of frogs' habitats is the climate warming. Compared with the global climate trending, human impacts only contribuate unpropotional factor to the vanish of frogs' habitats. The passage must explain more persuasively to reach the cited conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 339, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...he main and most significant reason for the disappear of frogs habitats is the climate warmin...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 493, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...nly contribuate unpropotional factor to the vanish of frogs habitats. The passage must exp...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore
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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1649.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 298.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.53355704698 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88623573893 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580536912752 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.7899360082 49.2860985944 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.0625 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.625 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.9375 7.06452816374 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199653119812 0.272083759551 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0715498179264 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.1370315915 0.0662205650399 207% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12830015071 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0769958216008 0.0443174109184 174% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.79 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.35 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.