The reading and the lecture are about the advantages and disadvantages of using hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine. The author of the reading believes that using of fuel-cell engines is more convenient than using internal-combustion engines in many ways. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the reading. She says that hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines are not useful method to replace the internal-combustion engines.
First, the author claims that hydrogen for fuel-cell engines are not easily consumed. He believes that Hydrogen can be derived from plentiful sources such as water. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She says that to make hydrogen engines, the hydrogen substance should be turned into pure hydrogen. Furthermore, she points out to make pure hydrogen, more petroleum and natural gases is needed.
Secondly, the author states that use of fuel-cell engines reduces pollution. He argues more carbon dioxide is released into the air when using internal-combustion engines. This argument is rebutted by the lecturer. She suggests, even though, internal combustion engines releases carbon dioxide, the fuel-cell engines releases more. She elaborates on the by saying when making hydrogen more carbon dioxide is release to the air.
Finally, the author mentions that using fuel-cell engines costs less money than other engines. The lecturer, on the other hand, feels that fuel-based cell engines has no cost saving. She outs forth the idea that to make hydrogen components platinum is needed, which is much expensive, and costs a lot of money.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 253, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ternal-combustion engines in many ways. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 7, column 215, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... saving. She outs forth the idea that to make hydrogen components platinum is nee...
^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pensive, and costs a lot of money.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1387.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 243.0 270.72406181 90% => OK
Chars per words: 5.70781893004 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94822203886 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99931405052 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 145.348785872 89% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530864197531 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 413.1 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.0795960229 49.2860985944 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 81.5882352941 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.2941176471 21.698381199 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05882352941 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.46898050053 0.272083759551 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.177309231765 0.0996497079465 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13728752442 0.0662205650399 207% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.316156663264 0.162205337803 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0726197551016 0.0443174109184 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.81 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.25 12.2367328918 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => Gunning_fog is low.
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.