TPO-48 - Integrated Writing Task
In this set materials, the reading passage state that frog population is decline; therefore, the reading passage provides several solutions for preventing declining frog's population.
On the other hand, the listening section brings into question the reading points by providing different reasons(and examples).
First of all, the reading passage indicates that the government does not allow farmers to use pesticides for preventing frog damage. In contrast, the lecturer opposes this view by mentioning that this suggestion is not economical and also, it is not fair for farming. If farmers follow some laws that reducing using pesticides, they may face with declining their product. Hence, farmers yield is reduced, and they could not compete with other farmers than can use pesticides. Therefore, it is not fair for farmers.
Second, the reading argues that treatment frog is helping them to become life; conversely, what the speaker believes is different. She points that individual frog must be treated, and the population of frug have huge numbers. Therefore, it is a hard situation. Also, this method cannot prevent offspring frog from the fungus. Thus, this treatment must be repeated again and again for each new generation. Therefore, this solution is not practical and also it is time-consuming. And, it is not cost effective.
Finally, according to the reading, people destroyed the lake and water that habitat of the frog. However, the professor claims that global warming causes disappear lake and water resource. If human prevents to use the lake and water resources, it cannot help to destroyed frog's habitat. Because global warming has effects on the destroyed lake and water resource.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-29 | Hem | 3 | view |
| 2019-03-02 | fatimamsy | 80 | view |
| 2019-01-28 | mahi22 | 81 | view |
| 2019-01-04 | tabatabaei777 | 83 | view |
| 2019-01-03 | chensixian | 76 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 356, Rule ID: REPEAT_AGAIN[1]
Message: Use simply 'repeated'.
Suggestion: repeated
...he fungus. Thus, this treatment must be repeated again and again for each new generation. Ther...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, therefore, thus, in contrast, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1447.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41947565543 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70310292435 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565543071161 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 430.2 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.9715618084 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.3888888889 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.8333333333 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.352706049911 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10205158848 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0915483344848 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169041861472 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.083193945133 0.0443174109184 188% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 11.0289183223 80% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.56 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.