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 article and the lecture are both about the methods to protect frogs from declines or even more seriously, extinction. However, the professor disputes the ideas that are provided in the article and the reasons are as follows.
First, the author of the article points out that the governments can use laws to prohibit the farmers from using harmful pesticides near frog populations because insects that are killed by such pesticides can be eaten by frogs. However, the lecturer does not agree with that. To be more specific, she argued that this method is not economically practical and is unfair for the farmers who need to obey the pesticide restriction. Those regulated farmers may lose more crops due to the insects which are damaging them and they will lose the competition in the markets against farmers from other areas.
Secondly, the article mentioned that there are antifungal treatments that can be applied on a large scale to prevent skin thickening caused by a kind of fungus. Nevertheless, the lecturer rejects the opinion. She suggests that those treatments have to be applied to each frog individually, so it is extremely complex and difficult to apply them to a large scale. Besides, this method may cost a large amount of money and time because of the need for individual treatments.
Finally, the article believes that people can prevent frogs from extinction by limiting excessive water use and development on frogs' natural habitats such as lakes and wetlands. However, the lecturer disputes the idea. She says that the biggest threat of the frog habitats is not the issue the article has mentioned, but, in fact, is global warming. Global warming causes the disappearance of lakes and wetlands and leads to the declines and extinction of frogs. Therefore, posing restrictions of excessive water use and development on humans does not really help frogs.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, really, second, secondly, so, therefore, in fact, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1578.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 309.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1067961165 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68269759613 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521035598706 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 487.8 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5936315711 49.2860985944 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.2 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.53333333333 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.136961474231 0.272083759551 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0413503773581 0.0996497079465 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0428339937097 0.0662205650399 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0806873651448 0.162205337803 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0229222464842 0.0443174109184 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.