March 13, 2020
Frog Extinction (Integrated)
The listening content and the reading passage have opposing views about several approaches to solve the problem of decreasing frog populations. First, the reading passage mentions that farmers use pesticides to prevent their crops from insects damaging, and the pesticides are harmful to frog death. If laws prohibit the framers from using pesticides, it would decrease the chance of frogs extinction. The listening part, however, asserts that the laws are not ecologically practical, since framers rely on pesticides to decrease crops losses and stay competitive. If the farmers, who are in the areas of endangered frog populations, follow the strict laws, it will disadvantage them to compare to others areas' farmers.
Second, the author suggests that fungus cause frog population decline. Applying treatments to kill the fungus with heat is one of the ways to protect frog populations. Yet, the speaker from the listening section points out the fact that the treatments have to apply individually to each frog, they are extremely difficult to use on a large scale. In addition, the treatments are not able to prevent the frog from passing fungus to their offspring, they have to apply on each generation again and again. So, protecting frog populations by using the treatments are complicated and expensive.
Finally, the reading thinks that frog have declined in numbers in their environment because their natural habitats are damaged by human activities. If the water habitats, such as lakes, can be protected, many frogs would recover. Likewise, the lecturer disputes it and stresses that the real big threat is global warming which contributes to the disappearance of water habitats and cause the entire species to go extinct. Thus, prohibiting humans from using water near frog habitats is not solving the frog population problem causes by global warming.
Frog Extinction (Integrated)
The listening content and the reading passage have opposing views about several approaches to solve the problem of decreasing frog populations.
First, the reading passage mentions that farmers use pesticides to prevent their crops from insects damaging them, and the pesticides are harmfuldeadly to frog deaths.
If laws prohibited the frarmers from using pesticides, it would decrease the chance of frogs extinction.
If ... -ed, ... would = Grammar for hypothetical things
If laws prohibited ...., it would....
The listening part, however, asserts that the laws are not ecologically practical, since framers rely on pesticides to decrease crops losses and stay competitive.
If the farmers, who are in the areas ofwhere there are endangered frog populations, follow the strict laws, it will disadvantage them toin compareison to others areas' farmers.
Second, the author suggests that fungus causes frog population decline.
Applying treatments to kill the fungus with heat is one of the ways to protect frog populations.
In addition, the treatments are not able to prevent the frog from passing fungus to their offspring,; they have to be apply onied to each generation again and again.
So, protecting frog populations by using the treatments areis complicated and expensive.
"Populations are", but "Protecting ... is". The thing that is "complicated and expensive" in this sentence is "Protecting".
Finally, the reading thinks that frogs have declined in numbers in their environment because their natural habitats are damaged by human activities.
If their water habitats, such as lakes, can be protected, many frogs would recover.
LikewiseOn the other hand, the lecturer disputes it and stresses that the real big threat is global warming which contributes to the disappearance of water habitats and cause the entire species to go extinct.
"Likewise" means they share the same opinion, however the lecturer "disputes" the idea that pesticides and water usage near frog habitats are the main cause of extinction. So we need a contrasting/contradicting transition phrase here. "On the other hand" is one of many possibilities.
Thus, prohibiting humans from using water near frog habitats is not solving the frog population problem causesd by global warming.
March 14, 2020
In these types of essay answers you need to write what YOUR conclusion is after reading and listening. When I've graded essays before there is always some points reserved for the writer's own opinion. Without your own opinion, you cannot show that you understood what you read and heard. You have only shown that you can hear and read English and put it into a standard format, which is the bulk of the points.
In short: add a final sentence adding your own idea about who you think is correct or if you think that they're both wrong and why.
|
Finally, the reading thinks that frog have declined in numbers in their environment because their natural habitats are damaged by human activities. Finally, the reading thinks that frogs have declined in numbers in their environment because their natural habitats are damaged by human activities. |
|
If the water habitats, such as lakes, can be protected, many frogs would recover. If their water habitats, such as lakes, can be protected, many frogs would recover. |
|
Frog Extinction (Integrated) |
|
The listening content and the reading passage have opposing views about several approaches to solve the problem of decreasing frog populations. |
|
First, the reading passage mentions that farmers use pesticides to prevent their crops from insects damaging, and the pesticides are harmful to frog death. First, the reading passage mentions that farmers use pesticides to prevent their crops from insects damaging them, and the pesticides are |
|
If laws prohibit the framers from using pesticides, it would decrease the chance of frogs extinction. If laws prohibited the f If ... -ed, ... would = Grammar for hypothetical things
If laws prohibited ...., it would.... |
|
The listening part, however, asserts that the laws are not ecologically practical, since framers using pesticides for declining crops loss. |
|
If the farmers, who are in the areas of declining frog populations, follow the strict laws, it will disadvantage them to compare to others areas' farmers. |
|
Second, the author suggests that fungus cause frog population decline. Second, the author suggests that fungus causes frog population decline. |
|
Applying treatments to kill the fungus with heat is one of the ways to protect frog populations. |
|
Yet, the speaker from the listening section points out the fact that the treatments have to apply individually to each frog, they are extremely difficult to use on a large scale. |
|
In addition, the treatments are not able to prevent frogs' offspring, they have to apply on each generation again and again. |
|
So, protecting frog populations by using the treatments is complicated and expensive. |
|
Likewise, the lecturer disputes it and stresses that the real big threat is global warming which contributes to the disappearance of water habitats and cause the entire species to go extinct.
"Likewise" means they share the same opinion, however the lecturer "disputes" the idea that pesticides and water usage near frog habitats are the main cause of extinction. So we need a contrasting/contradicting transition phrase here. "On the other hand" is one of many possibilities.
|
|
Thus, solving the problem of global warming is the way to help the problem of frog extinction. |
|
The listening part, however, asserts that the laws are not ecologically practical, since framers rely on pesticides to decrease crops losses and stay competitive. |
|
If the farmers, who are in the areas of endangered frog populations, follow the strict laws, it will disadvantage them to compare to others areas' farmers. If the farmers |
|
In addition, the treatments are not able to prevent the frog from passing fungus to their offspring, they have to apply on each generation again and again. In addition, the treatments are not able to prevent the frog from passing fungus to their offspring |
|
So, protecting frog populations by using the treatments are complicated and expensive. So, protecting frog populations by using the treatments "Populations are", but "Protecting ... is". The thing that is "complicated and expensive" in this sentence is "Protecting".
|
|
Thus, prohibiting humans from using water near frog habitats is not solving the frog population problem causes by global warming. Thus, prohibiting humans from using water near frog habitats is not solving the frog population problem cause |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium