Recently, there has been a debate about the benefits of replacement of internal combustion engine cars by hydrogen-based fuel cell engine cars.
Recently, there has been a debate about the benefits of replacement of internal combustion engine cars by hydrogen-based fuel cell engine cars. Some researchers support this idea and think it is possible, the author in the reading passage is one of the supporters. While another group of researchers adopts an opposite side of view and gives strong evidence to support their opinion, as the professor in the lecture did.
First of all, the professor claims that it is true hydrogen is available in a lot of substance around us like water, but to use it as fuel we have to convert it to pure liquid. More ever, the process of its' purification is complex and need advanced technology. Also, to keep it in the liquid form we need to store it in very low temperature, and that is hard to achieve as well. By this point, the lecture successfully argues the first point in the reading passage regarding the availability of hydrogen everywhere.
Second, the speaker asserts that the text assumption about the decrease of environmental pollution if we use the hydrogen instead of petroleum, is completely wrong. Furthermore, to extract the hydrogen in its pure form we have to burn much fuel that the cars already did, because the process of extraction needs high temperature.So that would lead to more pollution. As long with this fact, the second point in the lecture does not make sense anymore.
Finally, the professor refutes the third idea in the text about the cost effectivity of switching to a hydeogen based engine, because the production of this kind of engine needs platinum to start the chemical reaction to turn on this engine. Basically, it is too expensive metal and any attempt to use another metal ends up with failure. So, the lecture knocks down the third point that has mentioned by the author in the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Recently, there has been a debate about ...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., as the professor in the lecture did. First of all, the professor claims that ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e availability of hydrogen everywhere. Second, the speaker asserts that the tex...
^^^^
Line 3, column 333, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: So
...ss of extraction needs high temperature.So that would lead to more pollution. As l...
^^
Line 3, column 333, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[3]
Message: “So that” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ss of extraction needs high temperature.So that would lead to more pollution. As long w...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e lecture does not make sense anymore. Finally, the professor refutes the third...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, regarding, second, so, third, well, while, kind of, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 30.3222958057 178% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1515.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84025559105 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74313106484 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539936102236 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 1.25165562914 479% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1385872212 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.538461538 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0769230769 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.23076923077 7.06452816374 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.271682500696 0.272083759551 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101782684214 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.261438262285 0.0662205650399 395% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164924297869 0.162205337803 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.170787910152 0.0443174109184 385% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.