TPO 36
The reading passage claims that vast majorities of farmers in the different part of the United States complain about hails because they have had deleterious effects on the crops and damage them enormously. But recently a useful and effective method called cloud seeding has been used to diminish the number of damage. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas dubious and presents some evidence to refute them all.
First, the author contends that laboratory experiment patronizes this method due to the fact that silver iodide could be used to replace hails with snow. In contrast, the author underlines the idea that maybe this method could be able to create snow and rain but it prevents precipitation negatively. In fact, cloud seeding can run the risk of drought and the paucity of water.
The author also holds the view that there are several pieces of evidence in Asian Countries that this method could be useful and effective because they used cloud seeding to successfully control hail damage. On the contrary, the professor brings up the idea that due to the unclear and vague information, the success of cloud seeding in some part of Asia could not be repeated in other regions of the United States. Indeed, air pollution creates some favorable condition for cloud seeding but there is no guarantee for the success of this method in unpolluted areas.
Finally, as set forth by the author local studies also support the effectiveness of this method to diminish hail damage. Conversely, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that maybe reduce in hail damage happened because of natural variation in some areas. So, there is nothing to do with cloud seeding.
Having scrutinized all the ideas, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there are several pieces of evidence having been ignored by the author while the presence of which could strengthen the author's claim.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 217, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ich could strengthen the authors claim.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, while, in contrast, in fact, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1592.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02208201893 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45888480822 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514195583596 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 495.0 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.9017050033 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.461538462 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3846153846 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.53846153846 7.06452816374 121% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => 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: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.