Casein-based plastic packaging
The reading passage and lecture are both about casein-based plastic packaging. The author of article advocates its usage by mentoning three advantages. However, the professor in the leacture discredits the claims and questions their veracity, for these reasons.
Firstly, the lecturer states that casein is inherently sensitive to heat and water. To overcome this sensitivity, manufacturers are encouraged to use extra packaging for their products. This invariably leads to more wastage and environmental damage. This clearly discredits the author's claim regarding less wastage.
Furthermore, the lecturer concedes that although casein constitute smaller pores than other plastic materials, they are still vulnerable to water which deters the freshness of the food- taste and hygiene. He goes on to explain how this vulnerability causes casein to absorb water molecules. He also adds that they have less elasticity, contrary to the feature mentioned in the passage. Through this, he proves the author's preposition regarding impact on food as false.
Finally, the professor concludes by addressing the serious consequences it might have on people pre-dominantely allergic to milk. Due to presence to proteins, it is a big threat leading to developing symptoms and painful reactions. This clearly understates the various nutricious benefits as promoted by the passage.
In sum, the lecturer effectively casts doubt on the claims made in the passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 415, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...he passage. Through this, he proves the authors preposition regarding impact on food as...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, regarding, so, still
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1243.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 217.0 270.72406181 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.72811059908 5.08290768461 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8380880478 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99698645956 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.649769585253 0.540411800872 120% => OK
syllable_count: 382.5 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.5031673461 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.8666666667 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.4666666667 21.698381199 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.86666666667 7.06452816374 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.178527720437 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0494500890549 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0912738935985 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0768322939443 0.162205337803 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0703575433343 0.0443174109184 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.34 53.8541721854 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.36 12.2367328918 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.15 8.42419426049 120% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.