The reading and listening passages were about the topic of alternative energy sources, mainly focusing on wave farms and their advantages and disadvantages. The author maintains that wave farms are a great form of alternative energy supporting their use whereas the lecturer disagrees. He stands to support that wind farms may not be completely advantageous and do hold some drawbacks.
To start with, the author mentions that wave farms are better for the environment as compared to the combustion of fossil fuels because they don't release carbon dioxide during the generation of power. The lecturer is quick to point out the flaw in this reasoning stating that while wave farms produce lower amounts of carbon dioxide they do release other harmful emissions that also harm the environment.
Secondly, the author states that wave farms provide reliable energy due to the predictability of waves as opposed to solar power which is heavily reliant on the sun, and ever-changing weather patterns, which disrupt the continuous generation of energy. Here, the lecturer disagrees and brings forth the point that wave farms do face technical errors due to dysfunctional generators that do not guarantee consistent output and hence make it an unreliable source of energy.
Thirdly, the author states that wave farms are far less disruptive to the environment because they employ buoy systems but fails to mention the other systems they employ. The lecturer takes this point forward and mentions the other systems they use such as water columns that are often noisy and have construction faults that may lead to small marine animals and plants getting entangled in them, causing just as much harm as any other form of energy
To conclude, both the author and lecturer have differing viewpoints on this topic of wave farms, a form of alternative energy, where the author supports wave farms and the lecturer disregards them
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 142, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...combustion of fossil fuels because they dont release carbon dioxide during the gener...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, whereas, while, such as, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1617.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21612903226 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63145346653 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535483870968 0.540411800872 99% => 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: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 34.0 21.2450331126 160% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 104.282735335 49.2860985944 212% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 179.666666667 110.228320801 163% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.4444444444 21.698381199 159% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.4444444444 7.06452816374 162% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.386231009152 0.272083759551 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.173151499256 0.0996497079465 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0896547478943 0.0662205650399 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.213687189621 0.162205337803 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0966314807133 0.0443174109184 218% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.4 13.3589403974 153% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.97 53.8541721854 69% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 11.0289183223 151% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.59 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.4 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 10.498013245 149% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.