instead of / United States / cloud seeding / cloud seeding / silver iodide / instead of / cloud seeding / cloud seeding / water vapor / freezing point / silver iodide / cold water / water vapor / instead of / cloud seeding / cloud seeding / cloud seeding / United States / cloud seeding / United States / due to / cloud seeding
Individual words: Hail—pieces of ice that form and fall from clouds instead of snow or rain—has always been a problem for farmers in some areas of the United States. Hail pellets can fall with great force and destroy crops in the field. Over the last few decades, a method of reducing hail, called "cloud seeding," has been tried. In cloud seeding, the chemical silver iodide is sprayed on storm clouds from an airplane This makes the clouds produce harmless rain or snow instead of hail. Several pieces of evidence suggest that cloud seeding has been effective in protecting crops from hail. Laboratory experiments Experiments in the laboratory support the idea that cloud seeding is effective. Hail usually forms water vapor that is close to the freezing point However, when experimenters added silver iodide to cold water vapor in the laboratory, they often observed light snow forming instead of hail pellets. Evidence from Asia There is evidence about the effectiveness of cloud seeding from several countries around the world. In some Asian countries, for example, cloud seeding has been successfully used to control precipitation in urban areas. These positive results suggest that cloud seeding should also be effective in protecting fields and farms in the United States. Local studies A few local studies also support the value of cloud seeding. One study conducted in a farming region in the central United States, for example, directly monitored crop damage due to hail. The study found that in an area where cloud seeding was used there was reduced hail damage compared to previous years.
In these set of materials, the author provides three reasons in order to support the idea of using cloud seeding, which is a technique for reducing crop damage due to hail. In contrast to that, the professor argues that cloud seeding effects are not very clear and refutes each author's reasons.
Initially, the reading refers to laboratory experiments. Through these experiments, scientists have observed that if they added silver iodide to cold water, light snow would be formed as a result. On the other hand, the professor mentions that laboratory conditions are not as same as real conditions. Hence, she says that if cloud seeding had been done in less rainy regions, it would have led to drought weather.
Furthermore, the author takes Asia consequences as a reliable evidence. The reading claims that cloud seeding would work in the United States as well as it worked in Asia. On the contrary, the professor says that in city areas due to the a great deal of pollution, the cloud seeding would not be effective. She claims that the pollution would react with cloud seeding chemicals and bring about visa versa results.
Finally, the reading refers to local studies and possesses that cloud seeding worked in the central United states led to reduction of crop damage due to hail. Nevertheless, the professor opposes these notion by saying that same results have observed from other part of the United States, so other natural variation must be the reason of these consequences not the cloud seeding.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: On the contrary, the professor says that in city areas due to the a great deal of pollution, the cloud seeding would not be effective.
Description: The token the is not usually followed by an article
Suggestion: Refer to the and a
cloud seeding worked in the central United states led to reduction of crop damage
cloud seeding which worked in the central United states led to the reduction of crop damage
the professor opposes these notion by saying that same results have observed
the professor opposes these notions by saying that the same results have observed
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 23 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 12
No. of Words: 252 250
No. of Characters: 1225 1200
No. of Different Words: 132 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.984 4.2
Average Word Length: 4.861 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.409 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 62 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 35 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 25 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.67 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.388 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.605 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 166, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he United States as well as it worked in Asia. On the contrary, the professor say...
^^
Line 5, column 236, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'a' is left.
Suggestion: the; a
...rofessor says that in city areas due to the a great deal of pollution, the cloud seed...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 196, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this notion' or 'these notions'?
Suggestion: this notion; these notions
...il. Nevertheless, the professor opposes these notion by saying that same results have observ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, furthermore, hence, if, nevertheless, so, well, in contrast, as a result, as well as, in contrast to, on the contrary, on the other hand
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 : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1265.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01984126984 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53129505363 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547619047619 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 377.1 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.5192766741 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.416666667 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.0833333333 7.06452816374 171% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.356611913082 0.272083759551 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131205635624 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0969744373728 0.0662205650399 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.21936040513 0.162205337803 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0552127114314 0.0443174109184 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.