The article discusses a fascinating topic pertaining to that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that the increase of the use of ethanol is not bad and opposes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading passage discusses that the increased use of ethanol fuel would not help to solve global warming caused by gasoline used. In contrast, the professor provides information that the increase of use of ethanol is not bad for global warming. He states that ethanol, made of a plant such as corn. The process of growing the plants contrasts release of carbon dioxide. Every plant absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. So, growing the plants removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. clearly, a disparity exists between the article and the evidence exhibited by the professor.
Second, the article pushes forth the idea that the production of significant amounts of ethanol would dramatically reduce the amount of plants available for uses other fuel. However, the classroom discussion contends that by explain this point that the production of ethanol doesn't have reduce the source of food for animals. According to the professor, that is because we can produce ethanol from selolos. Selolos is the main component of pant and finds in the part of plants that didn't eat by animals. Consequently, we can argue that indeed the claim made in reading is unsubstantiated.
Finally, the reading posits that ethanol fuel will never be able to compete with gasoline on price. The professor refutes this point by explaining that in the future, ethanol will be able to compete with gasoline and turn the price. It is true that the government gives subsidies to ethanol, but it always is needed. People start buying ethanol so the price of ethanol will go done. we also learn that the price of ethanol is not so different from gasoline.
In summary, while both the passage and classroom discussion provide interesting information with regards to the replacement of ethanol. A significant amount of evidence supports that the use of ethanol is better than gasoline.
The article discusses a fascinating topic pertaining to that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that the increase of the use of ethanol is not bad and opposes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading passage discusses that the increased use of ethanol fuel would not help to solve global warming caused by gasoline used. In contrast, the professor provides information that the increase of use of ethanol is not bad for global warming. He states that ethanol, made of a plant such as corn. The process of growing the plants contrasts release of carbon dioxide. Every plant absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. So, growing the plants removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. clearly, a disparity exists between the article and the evidence exhibited by the professor.
Second, the article pushes forth the idea that the production of significant amounts of ethanol would dramatically reduce the amount of plants available for uses other fuel. However, the classroom discussion contends that by explain this point that the production of ethanol doesn't have reduce the source of food for animals. According to the professor, that is because we can produce ethanol from selolos. Selolos is the main component of pant and finds in the part of plants that didn't eat by animals. Consequently, we can argue that indeed the claim made in reading is unsubstantiated.
Finally, the reading posits that ethanol fuel will never be able to compete with gasoline on price. The professor refutes this point by explaining that in the future, ethanol will be able to compete with gasoline and turn the price. It is true that the government gives subsidies to ethanol, but it always is needed. People start buying ethanol so the price of ethanol will go done. we also learn that the price of ethanol is not so different from gasoline.
In summary, while both the passage and classroom discussion provide interesting information with regards to the replacement of ethanol. A significant amount of evidence supports that the use of ethanol is better than gasoline.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 497, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Clearly
...ves carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. clearly, a disparity exists between the article...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 276, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...is point that the production of ethanol doesnt have reduce the source of food for anim...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 288, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'reduced'.
Suggestion: reduced
...t the production of ethanol doesnt have reduce the source of food for animals. Accordi...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 483, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...nt and finds in the part of plants that didnt eat by animals. Consequently, we can ar...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 300, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[5]
Message: The adverb 'always' is usually put after the verb 'is'.
Suggestion: is always
...ment gives subsidies to ethanol, but it always is needed. People start buying ethanol so ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 384, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: We
...l so the price of ethanol will go done. we also learn that the price of ethanol is...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, however, if, second, so, while, in contrast, in summary, such as, it is true
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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1794.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 352.0 270.72406181 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09659090909 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66427597618 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474431818182 0.540411800872 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 564.3 419.366225166 135% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.1766784734 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.4285714286 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7619047619 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57142857143 7.06452816374 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.513894111433 0.272083759551 189% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.147330842479 0.0996497079465 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.164238009564 0.0662205650399 248% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.348692844038 0.162205337803 215% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.290905590486 0.0443174109184 656% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => 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: 12.0 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.