TPO 61
In this set of materials, both the reading and lecturer discuss the golden frog, which a small amphibian are become existing because of attack some fungus. Although the passage provides three solutions for the golden frog's fungus problem, the speaker refutes all of the arguments described in this report.
To start off, the passage points out that a natural enemy, which is a type of bacterium, is a practical solution because this bacterium can produce a chemical toxic material that can kill the fungus. The lecturer, in contrast, rejects this by claiming that introducing the bacterium has not a long effect. She explains that this bacterium only produces chemical toxic materials one time when colonizing on the frog's body. After breeding, this bacterium stops the produce chemical components. So, it is not a long effect solution.
Going through the next approach, the reading passage states that researchers can be breeding the golden frog in an isolated place, and when all ill fungus dies, they released all-new breeding frogs in the wild. However, the professor argues that new frogs cannot stay healthy in the wild because other animals which are living in the wild carry fungus; Hence, the fungus infect the new frogs immediately when they contact other animals.
Finally, although the passage says that some frogs can protect themselves by a natural defense, such as increasing their body temperature, the lecturer disagrees by mentioning that this defense mechanism has several drawbacks for the frog. When the frogs want to increase body temperature, they should use a lot of energy. Therefore, this amount of energy causes the frogs to become week. And after some time, they become ill, or sometimes they died. Consequently, this natural ability is not a good solution for protecting the golden frog.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-01-18 | janfaisal | 78 | view |
| 2021-12-11 | Ali Talaei | 76 | view |
| 2021-09-22 | محسن حمیدی پور | 85 | view |
| 2021-08-29 | mahi22 | 80 | view |
| 2021-08-25 | Percival Wong | 71 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 218, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
...provides three solutions for the golden frogs fungus problem, the speaker refutes all...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 260, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ogs fungus problem, the speaker refutes all of the arguments described in this report. ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, hence, however, so, therefore, in contrast, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1539.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21694915254 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53480002095 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549152542373 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 419.366225166 111% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.0359398286 49.2860985944 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.928571429 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0714285714 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => 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: 0.516440968121 0.272083759551 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.176398723866 0.0996497079465 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103993038109 0.0662205650399 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.318449341995 0.162205337803 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0762223876558 0.0443174109184 172% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.