TPO 15
The lecture mainly contradicts the author's arguments regarding the ways to destroy cane toads. The article suggests three ways to protect Australian farms from the species, however, the professor does not believe that the ways are as beneficiary as the passage claims, and refutes each of the article's mentioned ways to destroy the cane: making the fence, capturing by volunteers and spreading virus.
First and foremost, the passage asserts that a fence can regulate the cane movements from spreading to the other side of Australia. The lecturer, however, declines the idea providing that many young canes and its eggs live in rivers and streams, and therefore a fence can not stop it from establishing the population to the other side the fence.
According to the passage, cane toads are easy to be captured by volunteers. In contrast, the professor mentions that many of the volunteers are untrained. According to her, many Australian native frogs' eggs are hard to be distinguished from canes' eggs; therefore, volunteers, who are normal people, can not easily capture and destroy the canes' population.
Finally, the author wraps his argument positioning that a specifically designed virus can help to decrease the canes' population, while, the professor claims that the virus can not only hurt the cans in Australia, but also the ones live in their native habitant, America. The professor concedes that the virus is practical, but she claims that many researchers and pet collectors bring other American habitants such as reptiles, and these species can be brought the virus back to States. According to the professor, Cane toads are native habitants of Central and South America and harming them would destroy the whole ecosystem at those places.
To conclude, both the writer and the professor hold conflicting ideas regarding the ways to destroy the cane toad. Although the professor's arguments seem more reasonable to me, they would have a hard time finding common ground on this issue.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 339, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'canes'' or 'cane's'?
Suggestion: canes'; cane's
... can not easily capture and destroy the canes population. Finally, the author wraps...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 112, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'canes'' or 'cane's'?
Suggestion: canes'; cane's
...designed virus can help to decrease the canes population, while, the professor claims...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, regarding, so, therefore, while, in contrast, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1679.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 322.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21428571429 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67314104321 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540372670807 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 514.8 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 72.2969858754 49.2860985944 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.916666667 110.228320801 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8333333333 21.698381199 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.75 7.06452816374 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => 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: 0.365854284162 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142072494885 0.0996497079465 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0812857145364 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19618561337 0.162205337803 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0474086927591 0.0443174109184 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 53.8541721854 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.