Car manufacturers and governments have been eagerly seeking a replacement for the automobile's main source of power, the internal-combustion engine. By far the most promising alternative source of energy for cars is the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine, which uses hydrogen to create electricity that, in turn, powers the car. Fuel-cell engines have several advantages over internal-combustion engines and will probably soon replace them.
One of the main problems with the internal-combustion engine is that it relies on petroleum, either in the form of gasoline or diesel fuel. Petroleum is a finite resource; someday, we will run out of oil. The hydrogen needed for fuel-cell engines cannot easily be depleted. Hydrogen can be derived from various plentiful sources, including natural gas and even water. The fact that fuel-cell engines utilize easily available, renewable resources makes them particularly attractive.
Second, hydrogen-based fuel cells are attractive because they will solve many of the world's pollution problems. An unavoidable by-product of burning oil is carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide harms the environment. On the other hand, the only byproduct of fuel-cell engines is water.
Third, fuel-cell engines will soon be economically competitive because people will spend less money to operate a fuel-cell engine than they will to operate an internal-combustion engine. This is true for one simple reason: a fuel-cell automobile is nearly twice as efficient in using its fuel as an automobile powered by an internal-combustion engine is. In other words, the fuel-cell powered car requires only half the fuel energy that the internal-combustion powered car does to go the same distance.
The reading and the lecture are about the automobile's main source of power. The author of the reading feels that replacing the internal-combustion engine with a fuel-cell engine is better and provides reasons for that. The lecturer challenges all the claims made by the author by providing information hereunder.
Firstly, the writer posits that the internal-combustion engine depends on either gasoline form or diesel fuel, these sources can get depleted further. Additionally, he mentions that the resources for hydrogen are numerous and can be easily obtained from various resources. However, the tutor argues that hydrogen is not the element easily available as indicated in the passage. Moreover, hydrogen must be in a liquid state to produce fuel-cell. It is very difficult to produce and also hard to store hydrogen in that form. On top of that, she mentions that hydrogen should be stored at a very lower temperature, and for those companies manufacturing it should obtain equipment for hydrogen storage.
Secondly, from the passage, we can depict that replacing internal-combustion engines with hydrogen fuel-cell will prevent the pollution because the only by-product released will be the water. On the other hand, the tutor refutes this point by saying that the production of hydrogen creates lots of pollution than expected. Instead of fuel-cell, they can use purified forms of petroleum by a method of purification.
Finally, the article mentions that the fuel-cells will be much cheaper and will be available at a lower cost than the internal-combustion engine. On the contrary, the academician expresses her viewpoint by saying that the fuel-cell engine will not save any money, because in the manufacturing of fuel-cell the companies need platinum as a metal to incorporate. Furthermore, hydrogen cannot undergo any reaction without the platinum metal. The attempts made with cheaper metal are been always unsuccessful.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 220, 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.
...s better and provides reasons for that. The lecturer challenges all the claims made...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, on the contrary, on the other hand, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => 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: 1652.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48837209302 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18812960423 2.5805825403 124% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544850498339 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 419.366225166 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.9947479574 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.25 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8125 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.6875 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.28624519109 0.272083759551 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0909318644495 0.0996497079465 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0727127837422 0.0662205650399 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177844611238 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0526996620486 0.0443174109184 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.56 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.