The author states the evidence of the cloud seeding which has been effective in protecting crops from hail. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter-argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three evidence do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that one of the evidence is laboratory experiments. Experiments in the laboratory support the idea that cloud seeding is effective. Additionally, when they added silver iodide to cold water they observed light snow instead of hail pellets. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that the snow may be created in laboratory condition, but not in real life. The precipitation of the silver iodide cause drought. Therefore, they have lack of water.
The second argument the author gives is the evidence from Asia. The usage of cloud seeding is seen to be effective in urban areas of some Asian countries. These positive results could also be effective for the farms of the United States. However the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that the conditions are not the same in both countries. For example, in the cities, the air pollution is high, which may cause the favorable condition for the cloud seeds.On the other hand in the US farms are not that much polluted as the Asian cities are, Therefore, this evidence overturns writer's concept.
Lastly, on one hand , the passage points that local studies has been a good evidence. For example, monitoring crop damage due to hail, it is found that the use of cloud seeding made it possible to reduce hail damage compare to previous years. Nevertheless, the professor declares that this result were seen in hole area in the East also in the South not only in one part. So, the evidence is not enough persuasive.
The author states the evidence of the cloud seeding which has been effective in protecting crops from hail. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter-argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three evidence do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that one of the evidence is laboratory experiments. Experiments in the laboratory support the idea that cloud seeding is effective. Additionally, when they added silver iodide to cold water they observed light snow instead of hail pellets. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that the snow may be created in laboratory condition, but not in real life. The precipitation of the silver iodide cause drought. Therefore, they have lack of water.
The second argument the author gives is the evidence from Asia. The usage of cloud seeding is seen to be effective in urban areas of some Asian countries. These positive results could also be effective for the farms of the United States. However the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that the conditions are not the same in both countries. For example, in the cities, the air pollution is high, which may cause the favorable condition for the cloud seeds.On the other hand in the US farms are not that much polluted as the Asian cities are, Therefore, this evidence overturns writer's concept.
Lastly, on one hand , the passage points that local studies has been a good evidence. For example, monitoring crop damage due to hail, it is found that the use of cloud seeding made it possible to reduce hail damage compare to previous years. Nevertheless, the professor declares that this result were seen in hole area in the East also in the South not only in one part. So, the evidence is not enough persuasive.
- TPO 52- integrated writing task 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Educating children is a more difficult task today than it was in the past because they spend so much time on cell phone, online games, and social networking Website. 70
- TPO-30 76
- The author states the methods of protecting the forest trees oaks from the spread of dangerous P. ramorum fungus. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter - argues that viewpoint trying to prove these three methods do not seem convincing.First and foremost 80
- The author states about the criticized reasons of the turtle excluder device which is incorporated into the nets of shrimp-fishing boats. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter-argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three criticized reasons do 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 239, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ive for the farms of the United States. However the lecturer cannot be more outraged, e...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 371, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e in both countries. For example, in the cities, the air pollution is high, which...
^^
Line 6, column 468, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: On
...favorable condition for the cloud seeds.On the other hand in the US farms are not ...
^^
Line 8, column 20, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... writers concept. Lastly, on one hand , the passage points that local studies h...
^^
Line 8, column 350, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... hole area in the East also in the South not only in one part. So, the evidence i...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, for example, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1484.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03050847458 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62235292113 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552542372881 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 466.2 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.7036894748 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.2941176471 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3529411765 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.52941176471 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.420347628657 0.272083759551 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121530758627 0.0996497079465 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.177585080632 0.0662205650399 268% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.320325114047 0.162205337803 197% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.357516139454 0.0443174109184 807% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.