Feb. 14, 2020
Solving the problem of sensitive frog populations
The audio lecture I listened to and the reading passage that I read have opposing views about offering some practical solutions to slow down the problem of sensitive frog populations. Firstly, the reading mentions that frog populations extremely reduce since they are being harmed by pesticides, which are used by farmers to prevent insects from damaging farm crops. If laws prohibit the farmers using the harmful pesticides, it would solve the problem of declining frog populations. On the other hand, the listening asserts that the laws are not economically practical or fair. The farmer rely o the pesticides to decrease crop losses and stay competitive on the markets. If farmers followed the strict regulations, they would sever disadvantage compare to farmers in other areas. They would lose more crops and have lower yield than competing farms.
Secondly, the author presents that a fungus deadly affects frog populations as a result of frogs absorb water, fungus infects they die of dehydration. Researchers propose a treatment that kill the fungus with heat, it would protect sensitive frog populations from infection. Yet, the speaker from the listening passage indicates that the treatment offered by researchers should apply individually to each frog. Using them on a large scale is significantly difficult. Moreover, the treatment does not prevent the frogs passing the fungus on their offsprong. The treatment have to be applied again and again individually, so it is complicated and expensive.
Thirdly, the reading states that human activities, such as excessive water use, threaten frogs’ natural habitats, since they lay their eggs in water and depend on wetland habitats. If the key water habitats could be protected, many frogs would recover. In contrast, the lecturer argues that the solution offered by reading is not save frog populations. The real threat is global warming. It contributes to disappearing of many water and habitats, causing entire species to go extinct. Thus, forbidding humans from using water is not prevent the habitats changes caused by global warming.
Solving the problem of sensitive frog populations
The audio lecture I listened to and the reading passage that I read have opposing views about offering some practical solutions to slow down the problem of sensitive frog populations.
Firstly, the reading mentions that frog populations have been extremely reduced since they are being harmed by pesticides, which are used by farmers to prevent insects from damaging farm crops.
If laws prohibit the farmers using the harmful pesticides, it would solve the problem of declining frog populations.
On the other hand, the listening assertaudio excerpt claims that the laws are not economically practical or fair.
The farmer rely on the pesticides to decrease crop losses and stay competitive on the markets.
If farmers followed the strict regulations, they would be at a severe disadvantage compared to farmers in other areas.
They would lose more crops and have lower yield than competing farms.
Secondly, the author presents that a fungus deadly affects frog populations as a result of frogs absorbing water, (fungus infects they die of dehydration.)???
Researchers propose a treatment that kill the fungus with heat, it would protect sensitive frog populations from infection.
Yet, the speaker from the listening passage indicates that the treatment offered by researchers should apply individually to each frog.
Using them on a large scale is significantly difficult.
Moreover, the treatment does not prevent the frogs passing the fungus onto their offsprong.
The treatment have to be applied again and again individually, so it is complicated and expensive.
ThirdlyFurthmore, the reading states that human activities, such as excessive water use, threaten frogs’ natural habitats, since they lay their eggs in water and depend on wetland habitats.
"Thirdly" is not a word in the english language. We simply use terms such as "furthermore" to seperate different concepts and/or paragraphs
If the key water habitats could be protected, many frogs would recover.
In contrast, the lecturer argues that the solution offered by reading is not save frog populations.
The real threat is global warming.
It contributes to the disappearingance of many water and habitats, causing entire species to go extinct.
Thus, forbidding humans from using water iswould not prevent the habitats changechanges in habitats caused by global warming.
Feb. 14, 2020
Overall, your english is very impressive. Keep practicing and you will master it!
|
Solving the problem of sensitive frog populations This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
The audio lecture I listened to and the reading passage that I read have opposing views about offering some practical solutions to slow down the problem of sensitive frog populations. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Firstly, the reading mentions that frog populations extremely reduce since they are being harmed by pesticides, which are used by farmers to prevent insects from damaging farm crops. Firstly, the reading mentions that frog populations have been extremely reduced since they are being harmed by pesticides, which are used by farmers to prevent insects from damaging farm crops. |
|
If laws prohibit the farmers using the harmful pesticides, it would solve the problem of declining frog populations. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
On the other hand, the listening asserts that the laws are not economically practical or fair. On the other hand, the |
|
The farmer rely o the pesticides to decrease crop losses and stay competitive on the markets. The farmer rely on the pesticides to decrease crop losses and stay competitive on the markets. |
|
If farmers followed the strict regulations, they would sever disadvantage compare to farmers in other areas. If farmers followed the strict regulations, they would be at a severe disadvantage compared to farmers in other areas. |
|
They would lose more crops and have lower yield than competing farms. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Secondly, the author presents that a fungus deadly affects frog populations as a result of frogs absorb water, fungus infects they die of dehydration. Secondly, the author presents that a fungus deadly affects frog populations as a result of frogs absorbing water, (fungus infects they die of dehydration |
|
Researchers propose a treatment that kill the fungus with heat, it would protect sensitive frog populations from infection. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Yet, the speaker from the listening passage indicates that the treatment offered by researchers should apply individually to each frog. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Using them on a large scale is significantly difficult. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Moreover, the treatment does not prevent the frogs passing the fungus on their offsprong. Moreover, the treatment does not prevent the frogs passing the fungus onto their offsprong. |
|
The treatment have to be applied again and again individually, so it is complicated and expensive. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Thirdly, the reading states that human activities, such as excessive water use, threaten frogs’ natural habitats, since they lay their eggs in water and depend on wetland habitats.
"Thirdly" is not a word in the english language. We simply use terms such as "furthermore" to seperate different concepts and/or paragraphs |
|
If the key water habitats could be protected, many frogs would recover. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
In contrast, the lecturer argues that the solution offered by reading is not save frog populations. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
The real threat is global warming. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
It contributes to disappearing of many water and habitats, causing entire species to go extinct. It contributes to the disappear |
|
Thus, forbidding humans from using water is not prevent the habitats changes caused by global warming. Thus, forbidding humans from using water |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium