Alternative energy is any way of creating power for humankind to use, other than the
burning of fossil fuels, which is harmful to the environment. Some examples include
solar panels, which derive usable energy from the Sun's rays, and wind turbines,
which collect gusts of wind and transform them into energy. Wave farms, which
harness the power of ocean waves to store energy, have three main advantages
when compared to other energy sources.
First of all, like wind and solar power, wave farms are better for the environment.
The burning of fossil fuels, which is still the most popular source of energy in the
world, is extremely dangerous. Using gas and oil releases carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere and depletes the ozone layer. This layer of Earth’s atmosphere is crucial
since it protects plants and humans from harmful radiation. Wave farms do not
release carbon dioxide and cause almost no long-term environmental damage.
The second major advantage of wave farms is their predictability. Wave farms retain
energy from the ocean's waves, which are always in motion. Solar power depends
heavily on unpredictable weather patterns. For example, cloud cover results in little
to no energy being stored in solar panels because the Sun’s rays hardly reach the
Earth’s surface. On the other hand, ocean waves are measurable and predictable
and lead to a steady and reliable output of energy.
Finally, wave farms do not obstruct the ecosystem in which they are placed, unlike
enormous wind turbines that have been known to kill birds. Wave farms employ
flotation devices, called buoys, to collect wave energy and transmit it through a
series of cables back to a storage unit. This style of capturing energy blends much
better with the natural surroundings when compared to the large turbines you find
on wind farms.
The article introduces the topic of alternative energy sources. More specifically, the writer discusses the
advantages of wave farms, and how they are superior to all other options. The lecturer in the listening
passage disagrees. He believes that each energy source has certain drawbacks and attacks each of the
claims made in the reading.
In the reading, the author begins by stating that wave farms do not negatively impact the environment in
any way, unlike the burning of fossil fuels which damages the ozone layer. The lecturer, however,
disagrees with this viewpoint. He states that wave farms also emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in
order to operate. He goes on to say that dangerous chemicals are released into the ocean during the
construction of wave farms.
The author also claims that what makes wave farms stand apart from other alternative energy sources,
such as solar, is the predictability of waves and how they can provide a reliable amount of energy. Again,
the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that wave energy is just
as unstable as solar due to technical issues at the farms. Furthermore, harsh conditions can disrupt the
process of the generators.
Another reason why the author feels that wave farms are better is that they are environmentally friendly,
not hurting animals as wind turbines often do. The professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this
is accurate. He suggests that certain devices in the wave farm produce a loud sound which disturbs nearby
birds and other marine life. Moreover, animals could become trapped or caught up in parts of the
machines.
To sum up, both the writer and professor hold conflicting views about the benefits of wave farm energy.
It's clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on this issue.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 12, column 46, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ecturer believes there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that wave e...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, apart from, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1568.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17491749175 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55926496517 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.587458745875 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 479.7 419.366225166 114% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.8305743588 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.1111111111 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8333333333 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22222222222 7.06452816374 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 20.0 4.09492273731 488% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139051616245 0.272083759551 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.037258491329 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534992213684 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0386035307502 0.162205337803 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0546154608762 0.0443174109184 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.