TPO-22 - Integrated Writing Task
In the light of the reading passage, one can conclude that the author believes ethanol fuel, which is obtained from some plants, is not a good substitution for gasoline based on the three reasons they highlighted in the article. On the contrary, finding the author's justification weak and lacking in term of logic, the lecturer thoroughly and utterly repudiates this claim and gives some arguments in response.
First of all, the author drew attention to the fact that the burning of the ethanol release carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, to the environment and, will intensify global warming. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the validity of this idea. The professor explains that even though ethanol burning release CO2, it is not lead to global warming. Plants for the growing need to absorb CO2 for nutrition, so their natural thriving process, remove released carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Secondly, it was highlighted in the reading material that primary stuffs required for providing ethanol, such as corn, are animals main food sources and, any increase in ethanol production will decline these supplies. On the other hand, the lecturer denounces this idea. He explains that Selios is a main substance that using for production of ethanol and also it is a component of plants which is not eaten by animals so, it should not suppose such a fulmination for feed reserves.
As the last point to substantiate the reading’s claim, the author puts emphasis on the point that despite the governmental supports, ethanol is a prohibitive fuel and won't be able to compete with gasoline on price. Yet again, the lecturer deems the author's thesis invalid. The professor states that by amplification of ethanol consumption as a fuel, its production will increase and eventually it leads to price reduction.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-02-09 | Pooja dave | 80 | view |
| 2019-02-09 | Dragut | 98 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 259, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e article. On the contrary, finding the authors justification weak and lacking in term ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 254, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rice. Yet again, the lecturer deems the authors thesis invalid. The professor states th...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, such as, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1533.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 298.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14429530201 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76051331535 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557046979866 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.3576702672 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.75 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8333333333 21.698381199 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.75 7.06452816374 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.363077203371 0.272083759551 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.117582861021 0.0996497079465 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0790180790506 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.206692015808 0.162205337803 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0536410983074 0.0443174109184 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 13.3589403974 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.