Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they oppose the specific points made in the reading passage.
The main topic of both passage and the lecture is to discuss whether the fuel cell engine could replace the internal-combustion engines or not. The author states that these engines have some merits in comparing with the conventional engines, and are a good substitutes for them, while the speaker, in contrast, not only refutes the author's claims but also asserts that these new engines unless their merits could not replace the traditional type on the number of accounts elaborated upon hereunder.
To commence with, both the author and the lecturer discuss the using fuel in these two engines. The author states that internal-combustion engines rely on some unrenewable resources such as petroleum while the fuel cell engines' fuel is easily accessible and renewable. The professor contradicts this idea by asserting that using hydrogen is not the solution because it is not available easily, and it could not be used directly. She adds that it is necessary to obtain it from the water or other material in the pure liquid state, and its produce and storage is very difficult. It should be stored in the -25 centigrade which causes the use of fuel cell engine impractical.
In addition, both the author and the professor discuss the environmental aspects of each engine. The author says that the by-product of Fuel cell engines is water and does not pollute the environment in comparing the fuel used in internal-combustion engines which produce carbon dioxide. The professor on the other hand claims that produce pure hydrogen produce a lot of pollution. Furthermore, she states that the purification process of Hydrogen needs oil and gas which should be burned for producing energy and cause to pollute the environment.
The last allegation of the author against what was discussed in the lecture is that the fuel cell engines is economical or not. The professor asserts that the producing fuel cell engines are very expensive and in these engines use a particular metal which its name is platinum and the research for replacing this metal with a cheaper material was not successful.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, so, while, in addition, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 7.30242825607 233% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1746.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 344.0 270.72406181 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07558139535 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89086231266 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456395348837 0.540411800872 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 558.0 419.366225166 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.4665216715 49.2860985944 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.307692308 110.228320801 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4615384615 21.698381199 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.0131064914616 0.272083759551 5% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00700099055697 0.0996497079465 7% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0128711838465 0.0662205650399 19% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.00881675157409 0.162205337803 5% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.009474992348 0.0443174109184 21% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 53.8541721854 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.