The article demonstrates the main positive reasons of why using airships as a sort of aircraft can be beneficial again after a nearly 80 years pause in its prevalence. However, the lecture cast doubts on ideas made by the article and tries to support another side view. Bellow, a gist of debates are mentioned.
First, the article proposes because the airship no longer requires an engine for ascending, only uses engine for forwarding propulsion, this device has merits against of helicopter and airplane. Hence, using less engine gives rise to less fuel and more economical benefits in transportation. The professor refutes this idea by focusing attention on the specific light gas that this type of aircraft needs. These gases can be hydrogen or helium, while the former endangers the whole airship due to its potential for combustion and later has a considerable price that is likely no longer worth being used. Thus, judgment about costs should not only include fuel.
Second, the article expresses about airship capability to reach difficult and hard access points due to its direct vertical movement for ascending or descending. this potential can be utilized for carrying heavy loads like logs. The professor criticizes this argument with the idea of safety. He points out in windy atmospheres it can be entirely dangerous to keep airship stability and heavy loads may fail to reach their destination safely.
Finally, the article expresses about using airships as a cheap carrier of sattelites. The professor highly rejects this point also by expressing the idea that ballons stand in the of 14 km over the surface. At this altitude, strong winds blows and airships have to burn abundant fuels to stand against. The fueling and refueling process can not be justified in the mean.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 254, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...engine gives rise to less fuel and more economical benefits in transportation. The profess...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 163, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...l movement for ascending or descending. this potential can be utilized for carrying ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 372, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ocess can not be justified in the mean.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, thus, while, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 12.0772626932 25% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1509.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 293.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15017064846 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62654097924 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 145.348785872 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.62457337884 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 467.1 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.1116864701 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.3125 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3125 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.9375 7.06452816374 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.126110924936 0.272083759551 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0402306332199 0.0996497079465 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0364274483616 0.0662205650399 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0779099512035 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0228105318193 0.0443174109184 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.