Hail—pieces of ice that form and fall from clouds instead of snow or rain—has always been a problem for farmers in some areas of the United States. Hail pellets can fall with great force and destroy crops in the field. Over the last few decades, a method of reducing hail, called "cloud seeding," has been tried. In cloud seeding, the chemical silver iodide is sprayed on storm clouds from an airplane. This makes the clouds produce harmless rain or snow instead of hail. Several pieces of evidence suggest that cloud seeding has been effective in protecting crops from hail. Laboratory experiments Experiments in the laboratory support the idea that cloud seeding is effective. Hail usually forms water vapor that is close to the freezing point However, when experimenters added silver iodide to cold water vapor in the laboratory, they often observed light snow forming instead of hail pellets. Evidence from Asia There is evidence about the effectiveness of cloud seeding from several countries around the world. In some Asian countries, for example, cloud seeding has been successfully used to control precipitation in urban areas. These positive results suggest that cloud seeding should also be effective in protecting fields and farms in the United States. Local studies A few local studies also support the value of cloud seeding. One study conducted in a farming region in the central United States, for example, directly monitored crop damage due to hail. The study found that in an area where cloud seeding was used there was reduced hail damage compared to previous years.
The reading suggests a method called: “cloud seeding” to protect the crops from the harmful effects of Hail. The author highlights three reasons for his suggestion. On the other hand, the lecture refutes this suggestion for the following reasons that will be explored in the following essay.
Firstly, the writer claims that laboratory experiments were performed by adding silver iodide to cold water vapor. The result of the experiment was that light snow was formed rather than Hail. Thus, it was proven effective to prevent hail formation. However, the professor debates this and mentions that it is successful only in the lab. She goes on and emphasizes that using cloud seeding in real life will have detrimental effects. Because, it will prevent any precipitation of water. Eventually, there will be a high risk of drought and hence, damaging the crops.
Secondly, the author states that cloud seeding was proven to be successful in urban areas in South Asia. So, it is supposed to be effective in protecting crops in fields. Nevertheless, the lecturer debates this and mentions that those urban areas have a high level of pollution creating favorable conditions for cloud seeding. She goes on and illustrates that cloud seeding is effective in urban areas with polluted air but doesn’t work with unpolluted areas of crop fields.
Lastly, the writer mentions that cloud seeding was performed in farming regions that directly monitored crop damage from Hail. Fortunately, it showed less crop damage than previously. On the other hand, the lecture disputes this and highlights the fact that many of the neighboring areas had shown a decrease in hail. Therefore, Hail decreased due to natural variation rather than seed clouding.
To sum up, the professor finds the reasons mentioned in the reading passage unclear and not well-founded.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 435, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...eal life will have detrimental effects. Because, it will prevent any precipitation of w...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, as for, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1555.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23569023569 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67541418039 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531986531987 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 455.4 419.366225166 109% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.6684695993 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.8421052632 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.6315789474 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.57894736842 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 4.33554083885 277% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.168737656286 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0518884143671 0.0996497079465 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0478468145284 0.0662205650399 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.08781720215 0.162205337803 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.049430765419 0.0443174109184 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.