Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific methods proposed in the reading passage.
The main topic of both the passage and the lecture is about decreasing the frog population and probably the solution for preventing them to become extinct. The passage claims that there is some solution available to solve the problem of declining frog population. The professor, on the other hand, utterly denies whatever mentioned in the passage through citing several reasons.
First, both the passage and the lecture talk about the influence of using pesticides in frog population. According to the passage, passed laws can be effective to prevent farmer to use harmful pesticides near sensitive frog population in order to reduce the harmful effect of pesticides to frog. However, the professor refutes this, stating that preventing farmers from using pesticides is not economically. She asserts that this work leads to lower crops and other product for farmers.
Secondly, both the author and the professor discuss the issue of using antifungal medication and treatments. The author argues that it is helpful to use the antifungal medication to reduce an amount of fungus that interrupts the dehydration process of the frogs. In contrast, the professor points out that using antifungal medication and treatments is impossible because we have to get specific antifungal for any individual; whit this in mind, it is the complicated and difficult process and furthermore, it is necessary to use antifungal for each season.
Lastly, both the reading and the lecture address the subject of human activities' effect on the frog population. The passage goes on to mention that if humans protect from lakes, which are the key eater habitats of the frog, the frog population do not decrease. Nevertheless, the professor rebuts this idea and assert that the global warming is the most critical aspect of variation in the lakes as well as marshes. Consequently, the human protecting will not help.
All in all, the author maintains the idea that it is possible to protect the population of the frog, while the professor not only casts doubt on author's claims, but she also refutes all of it.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-11 | NIMA SAEEDI | 80 | view |
| 2019-12-11 | NIMA SAEEDI | 3 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | NIMA SAEEDI | 80 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | NIMA SAEEDI | 3 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | NIMA SAEEDI | 3 | view |
- Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific methods proposed in the reading passage. 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Because modern life is very complex, it is essential for young people to have the ability to plan and organize.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- You are helping to select a leader for a student organization or club Do you agree or disagree that a person s honesty is the most important thing to consider in deciding whom to vote for Use reasons and examples to support your position 87
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 265, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...e problem of declining frog population. The professor, on the other hand, utterly d...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, well, while, in contrast, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 5.01324503311 319% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1762.0 1373.03311258 128% => OK
No of words: 339.0 270.72406181 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19764011799 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75792437012 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504424778761 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 544.5 419.366225166 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.0088881835 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.466666667 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4666666667 7.06452816374 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.042877412274 0.272083759551 16% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0119240657301 0.0996497079465 12% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0198969111935 0.0662205650399 30% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0239768655703 0.162205337803 15% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0160935133093 0.0443174109184 36% => 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: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.