The author states the reasons that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter- argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these reasons do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that the increase of the use of ethanol will not help to solve the problem of global warming. Therefore, like gasoline, ethanol will release carbon dioxide in atmosphere. On the contrary, the lecturer cannot disagree more, reasoning that the production of ethanol itself does not cause the global warming because the ethanol is produced by corn which counteract the release of carbon dioxide. Actually, the carbon dioxide is removed from atmosphere. As a result, this assumption seems illogical.
The second argument the author gives is the production of significant amount of ethanol would reduce the amount of plants available. However, the professor cannot be more outraged, explaining that for production of ethanol they use cellulose which is a component of the plant that it is not eaten from the animals. So, the number of plants will not be effect it at all. So, we can infer that this presumption cannot be correct.
Lastly, on one hand, the passage points out that he price of ethanol cannot compete with the price of gasoline. This would happen because the government has formed the tax subsidies. Nevertheless, the professor declaring that the government is not going to support this because the need for ethanol will increase, and as a result, the price will go down. So, people will produce more ethanol. Consequently, this reason is baseless.
Although, the text suggests three reasons for the effect of ethanol in supporting the disadvantages in environment, the professor believe that none of them are persuasive.
.
The author states the reasons that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter- argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these reasons do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that the increase of the use of ethanol will not help to solve the problem of global warming. Therefore, like gasoline, ethanol will release carbon dioxide in atmosphere. On the contrary, the lecturer cannot disagree more, reasoning that the production of ethanol itself does not cause the global warming because the ethanol is produced by corn which counteract the release of carbon dioxide. Actually, the carbon dioxide is removed from atmosphere. As a result, this assumption seems illogical.
The second argument the author gives is the production of significant amount of ethanol would reduce the amount of plants available. However, the professor cannot be more outraged, explaining that for production of ethanol they use cellulose which is a component of the plant that it is not eaten from the animals. So, the number of plants will not be effect it at all. So, we can infer that this presumption cannot be correct.
Lastly, on one hand, the passage points out that he price of ethanol cannot compete with the price of gasoline. This would happen because the government has formed the tax subsidies. Nevertheless, the professor declaring that the government is not going to support this because the need for ethanol will increase, and as a result, the price will go down. So, people will produce more ethanol. Consequently, this reason is baseless.
Although, the text suggests three reasons for the effect of ethanol in supporting the disadvantages in environment, the professor believe that none of them are persuasive.
.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 173, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...lieve that none of them are persuasive. .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, consequently, first, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, as for, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1505.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20761245675 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72837950014 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522491349481 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 462.6 419.366225166 110% => 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: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.473114533 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.5294117647 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35294117647 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.352812023729 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114338733085 0.0996497079465 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.170810857268 0.0662205650399 258% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.254083097392 0.162205337803 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.309051775328 0.0443174109184 697% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.64 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.