tpo22
Both author and lecturer offer two opposing views on the capacity of ethanol, which is able to compete with the gasoline or not. While the reading passage lists some factors as the failures of this fuel, the professor counters these specific points and presents some clues to call into the question the information in the text.
First of all, the article mentions to the carbon dioxide emission of this fuel, which leads to the increment of global warming, as one of the disadvantages. However, the lecturer refutes this factor's negative side-effect in the environment. As she asserts, although this fuel releases the carbon dioxide, this fuel is derived from the plants such as the corn. As the result, the cultivation and growth of plants can decrease the carbon dioxide pollution caused by its burn; moreover, it does not enhance the global warming.
Next, meanwhile, the passage assumes that the production of ethanol from corns will threaten the food resource of the animals; the professor casts doubt on the accuracy of this claim. As he states, this fuel is gained from the cellulose, which is the part of the plant is not eaten by the animals. Consequently, it does not matter how much the ethanol gained from the plants; since it is derived from the uneatable part of the plant and does not decline the foot source of animals.
Finally, the text posits that the cost of ethanol is not compatible with the gasoline’s cheap expense, especially if the government stops its financial adherence from the ethanol. On the other hand, the lecturer challenges the validity of this assertion. Based on his evidence, the high cost of the ethanol is as the result of fewer consumers. In addition, there is no demand for the governmental support in the future; inasmuch as in the future, the increased requirement will lead to the more production, and the subsequent amount of ethanol will pave the path to the decrement of its price. Based on his static, if the amount of ethanol increases three times the ultimate cost of it will drop 40 percent.
Discourse Markers used:
['consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'while', 'in addition', 'such as', 'first of all', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.275689223058 0.261695866417 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.110275689223 0.158904122519 69% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0501253132832 0.0723426182421 69% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0325814536341 0.0435111971325 75% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0275689223058 0.0277247811725 99% => OK
Prepositions: 0.145363408521 0.128828473217 113% => OK
Participles: 0.0250626566416 0.0370669169778 68% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.62770327278 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.015037593985 0.0208969081088 72% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.175438596491 0.128158765124 137% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0125313283208 0.0158828679856 79% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0100250626566 0.0114777025283 87% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2063.0 1645.83664459 125% => OK
No of words: 350.0 271.125827815 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.89428571429 6.08160592843 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.04852973271 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.34 0.374372842146 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.274285714286 0.287516216867 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.197142857143 0.187439937562 105% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0942857142857 0.113142543107 83% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62770327278 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52 0.539623497131 96% => OK
Word variations: 55.3532164153 53.8517498576 103% => OK
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0529801325 107% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.7502111507 115% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4313631728 49.3711431718 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.357142857 132.220823453 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 21.7502111507 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.857142857143 0.878197800319 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.39072847682 0% => OK
Readability: 52.4285714286 50.5018328374 104% => OK
Elegance: 2.61764705882 1.90840788429 137% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.726400610466 0.549887131256 132% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.193826187438 0.142949733639 136% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0782886649673 0.0787303798458 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.739711866036 0.631733273073 117% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.0930442996535 0.139662658121 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.427826153088 0.266732575781 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0794010943607 0.103435571967 77% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.639703176004 0.414875509568 154% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0628303728192 0.0530846634433 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.591408976126 0.40443939384 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462908089656 0.0528353158467 88% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.26048565121 70% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 3.49668874172 114% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 3.62251655629 166% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 3.1766004415 63% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 10.2958057395 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.