The reading passage proposes three potential solutions to address the decline in the frog population, while the lecturer casts doubt on the feasibility and effectiveness of these proposals.
Firstly, the author suggests implementing laws to restrict the use of pesticides near frog habitats. However, the lecturer argues that this approach would be unfair and impractical. The use of pesticides is essential for farmers to protect their crops from damage, and stricter regulations would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Additionally, the lecturer mentions that the economic implications of such restrictions would be detrimental to the farming industry.
Secondly, the writer proposes using antifungal medication to protect frogs from dehydration caused by a fungal infection. In response, the lecturer highlights the logistical challenges and cost associated with individually capturing and treating each frog. Moreover, the treatment does not pass down to offspring, requiring repeated application for each generation. This approach is deemed impractical and unsustainable.
Lastly, the passage suggests preserving frog habitats by limiting excessive water use from wetlands and marshes. However, the lecturer disputes the effectiveness of this solution, attributing habitat destruction to global warming rather than human activity. Restricting water usage from wetlands is unlikely to address the underlying cause of habitat degradation.
In conclusion, the lecturer casts doubt on the proposed solutions for the decline in frog populations presented in the reading passage. The speaker argues that restrictions on pesticide use would be economically and practically unfair, applying antifungal medication to individual frogs is logistically challenging and costly, and limiting water usage from wetlands fails to address the primary cause of habitat destruction. These objections raise questions about the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed measures to mitigate the decline in frog populations.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, so, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 12.0772626932 25% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1744.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 6.11929824561 5.08290768461 120% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22863458071 2.5805825403 125% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547368421053 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 536.4 419.366225166 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.5754463545 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.266666667 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26666666667 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.133314473938 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0488530951567 0.0996497079465 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0506553367708 0.0662205650399 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0826717700808 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0470600505735 0.0443174109184 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.81 53.8541721854 50% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.22 12.2367328918 149% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.29 8.42419426049 122% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 63.6247240618 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.