Ethanol fuel, made from plants such as corn and sugar cane, has been advocated by some people as an alternative to gasoline in the United States. However, many critics argue that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline for several reasons.
First, the increased use of ethanol fuel would not help to solve one of the biggest environmental problems caused by gasoline use: global warming. Like gasoline, ethanol releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when it is burned for fuel, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas: it helps trap heat in the atmosphere. Thus, ethanol offers no environmental advantage over gasoline.
Second, the production of significant amounts of ethanol would dramatically reduce the amount of plants available for uses other than fuel. For example, much of the corn now grown in the United States is used to feed farm animals such as cows and chickens. It is estimated that if ethanol were used to satisfy just 10 percent of the fuel needs in the United States, more than 60 percent of the corn currently grown in the United States would have to be used to produce ethanol. If most of the corn were used to produce ethanol, a substantial source of food for animals would disappear.
Third, ethanol fuel will never be able to compete with gasoline on price. Although the prices of ethanol and gasoline for the consumer are currently about the same, this is only because of the help in the form of tax subsidies given to ethanol producers by the United States government. These tax subsidies have cost the United States government over $11 billion in the past 30 years. If the United States government were to stop helping the producers in this way, the price of ethanol would increase greatly.
The reading passage and lecture have conflicting opinions about whether or not replacing gasoline for ethanol is really beneficial. The article strongly postulates that using ethanol instead of gasoline is unfavorable for three compelling reasons. On the other hand, the listening adamantly delinates that ethanol is a very good alternative for gasoline. Also, none of the three presented reasons are convincing.
First and foremost, according to the author of the excerpt, global warming problem wouldn't be solved by using more ethanol owing to the fact that using ethanol as fuel can release carbon dioxide like gasoline. Therefore, using more ethanol wouldn't help to solve one of the biggest environmental issues. Nonetheless, the lecture offsets these points by declaring that using ethanol will not add problems to global warming. the released carbon dioxide from using ethanol as fuel can be compensated by cultivating more plants and trees that produce ethanol. In other words, farming corns can reduce carbon dioxide because plants absorb this harmful gas.
On top of this, the professor in lecture further points out that on a large scale ethanol can be produced from plants using cellious. meaning that producing ethanol can meet the individual's demands by producing ethanol from trees that aren't eaten by animals. As a result, the animals wouldn't suffer from food shortage. These claims refute the writer implication of how producing ethanol from plants would harm animals. Also, reduce the number of available trees.
The article lastly asserts that using gasoline would cast people less because governments are already paying subsidies tax to people who produce ethanol. which means the ethanol price will increase dramatically if it's used as fuel. The speaker in lecture counters these points by insisting that if there is more production of the ethanol the ethanol price would decrease.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 65, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...lecture have conflicting opinions about whether or not replacing gasoline for ethanol is reall...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 84, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
... of the excerpt, global warming problem wouldnt be solved by using more ethanol owing t...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 241, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...gasoline. Therefore, using more ethanol wouldnt help to solve one of the biggest enviro...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 423, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...ill not add problems to global warming. the released carbon dioxide from using etha...
^^^
Line 5, column 135, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Meaning
...be produced from plants using cellious. meaning that producing ethanol can meet the ind...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 236, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...ds by producing ethanol from trees that arent eaten by animals. As a result, the anim...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 285, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...en by animals. As a result, the animals wouldnt suffer from food shortage. These claims...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 155, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Which
...dies tax to people who produce ethanol. which means the ethanol price will increase d...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 327, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'the ethanol'.
Suggestion: the ethanol
...ing that if there is more production of the ethanol the ethanol price would decrease.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, lastly, nonetheless, really, so, therefore, as a result, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 15.1003584229 60% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 13.8261648746 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 43.0788530466 37% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 52.1666666667 61% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.0752688172 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1613.0 1977.66487455 82% => OK
No of words: 298.0 407.700716846 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.41275167785 4.8611393121 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.48103885553 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52746946318 2.67179642975 95% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 212.727598566 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.543624161074 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 505.8 618.680645161 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.59856630824 10% => OK
Article: 9.0 3.08781362007 291% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.0290460553 48.9658058833 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.8823529412 100.406767564 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5294117647 20.6045352989 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.29411764706 5.45110844103 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.5376344086 163% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.264775636868 0.236089414692 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0935885072829 0.076458572812 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586723228994 0.0737576698707 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175718210271 0.150856017488 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0562787649441 0.0645574589148 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 11.7677419355 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 58.1214874552 79% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.8 10.9000537634 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.01818996416 107% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 86.8835125448 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.