Ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline.
The reading passage argues that ethanol fuel cannot replace the use of gasoline. However, the lecturer strongly disagrees with this argument. In fact, he provides us with three following reasons to refute it.
First of all, the reading mentions that the use of ethanol fuel cannot relieve Global Warming. However, the professor seriously rejects this idea by arguing that the process of making ethanol does make Global Warming better. In reality, he says, when making ethanol fuel, the producers need to grow many crops, and these plants can absorb carbon dioxide and relief Global Warming. Thus, this theory lacks solid evidence to support itself.
Second, the reading tells that the production of ethanol fuel will prevent animals from getting enough food because all the crops will transfer into ethanol fuel. Nevertheless, the speaker did not completely agree with this statement by arguing that ethanol fuel is made of plant cell walls which animals do not eat. That is to say, there is no negative effect on the availability of food for animals. As a result, this argument is not convincing.
Last but not least, the reading explains the price of ethanol fuel is not as competitive as gasoline. On the contrary, the scholar firmly refutes this explanation. In reality, he says, the price of ethanol fuel will drop down when the production of Ethanal fuel increase. To be more specific, the price of ethanol fuel in the future will be 80 percent cheaper than now. To conclude, the reading needs to offer more evidence to convince us.
To sum up, the professor refutes severely all the reasons why ethanol fuel cannot take the place of gasoline. In other words, the reading does not give convincing evidence to gain credibility.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 1, 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.
... offer more evidence to convince us. To sum up, the professor refutes severely ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, thus, in fact, as a result, first of all, in other words, on the contrary, to sum up, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1458.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04498269896 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42315352226 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546712802768 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 447.3 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.4374992998 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.0 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0555555556 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.38888888889 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.200816186851 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0643244679771 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0756209091187 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117134826904 0.162205337803 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0241556015386 0.0443174109184 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.