The golden frog is a small bright-yellow amphibian that lives in and around mountain streams in Panama The species is severely endangered because of a fungus that infects the frog through its skin and inhibits the frog's critical life functions, such as breathing. Conservationists have proposed a few solutions to the golden frog's fungus problem.
Bacterial Protection
First, scientists have identified a natural enemy of the fungus: a type of bacterium. This bacterium produces a chemical that kills fungal cells. Scientists think that they may be able to introduce colonies of this bacterium to the skin of golden frogs. The bacterial colonies would then protect the frogs against the fungus infection
Breeding Frogs in Captivity
Second, researchers are considering the possibility of breeding golden frogs in captivity and then releasing them in the wild to replenish wild populations The golden frog can develop disease-free in captivity; where it is isolated from the fungus When golden frogs bred in captivity are released in habitats where wild golden frogs have died out, the frogs bred in captivity will give rise to a healthy, fungus-free population.
A Natural Defense
Third, it is possible that golden frogs w川 overcome the threat posed by the fungus without human intervention. Some golden frogs have what seems to be a natural defense against the fungus. When infected, they increase their body temperature, which slows down the growth of the fungus If this ability to resist the fungal infection spreads among the golden frog population as a whole, the frog population is likely to overcome the crisis and start increasing again.
In this set of materials, the reading and the lecture both discuss the golden Frog infected from fungus in Panama. The reading passage strongly postulates that there are few solutions that could prevent the frogs from the fungus spread, and provides three reasons to endorse its idea. However, the professor in the lecture mentions that solutions proposed by the reading are unconvincing and ineffective, and gainsays each of them.
First and foremost, the writer begins by asserting that if golden frogs are treated with a particular bacterium, which acts against the fungus, it would kill the fungus. On the other hand, the lecturer dismisses this point by positioning that though the introduction of the bacterium would have positive impacts, those effects would not be long-lasting. He goes on to say that introducing bacterium at the initial stage would be helpful, but now fungus is widespread. Therefore, the bacterium protection would be temporary.
Furthermore, the lecturer posits that when the new population of frogs is released from captivity and in wild, It would not make any difference. To be more specific, there are other golden frogs or species that are infected, they will come into the contact with the captivated frogs and infect them again. These claims clearly refute the writer's implication that breeding frogs in captivity would improve disease control as it will replenish the frog's population.
Ultimately, the writer wraps up its argument by declaring that natural defense by raising the body temperature of frogs acts against the fungus, and will solve the problem. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes an issue with that contending heating up to a high temperature is associated with drawbacks. Firstly, frogs will have to burn lots of their energies in order to raise the temperature that would weaken them. Secondly, those weakened frogs are more prone to diseases and other illnesses. Hence, this solution is also not applicable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 338, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... again. These claims clearly refute the writers implication that breeding frogs in capt...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 446, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...isease control as it will replenish the frogs population. Ultimately, the writer wra...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, 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: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1653.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 314.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26433121019 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7287790569 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554140127389 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.8369321161 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.2 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9333333333 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.215502919719 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0789942301383 0.0996497079465 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0713426154815 0.0662205650399 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138780866684 0.162205337803 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0527057597789 0.0443174109184 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.