Both the reading and the lecture talk about the hydrogen as an alternative for gasoline and its advantages and disadvantages of using that as a practical solution to come over the shortage of oil resources in near futuer. While the article claims that hydrogen could be a wonderful substitute for gasoline becuase of its availabilities and high-efficient energy produciong capacity rather than gasoline, the lecturer casts doubt on this idea and refutes all the author's reasons.
First, the reading materials state that hydrogen as one part of water molecule is much plentiful and we can consider that as an infinite resources. Controversiallly, the professor challenges this theory by explaining that hydrogen is rarely in the pure form in the nature. She mentions that hyrogen in the water molecule bonds to oxygen atom and it sholuld be purified to be usable in the pure form. The lecturer insistes that hydrogen is not available in immediate form to be usable in fuel cell. Then by this explanation this advantage of hydrogen as an endless resources of energy does not hold water.
Second, the article posits that hydrogen can be stored in small cell and transport easily rather than gasoline. On the other hand, the professor rebuts this advantages of hydrogen and clearly explains how it sould be dangerous, since hydrogen is explodable when a car accident happen in the raod. She avers that instead of gasoline that it is flammable, hydrogen is explodable and it means that gasoline is safer rather than hydrogen. When gasoline burns, hydrogen explodes. Therefore, using hydrogen as a energy source for car has more limitation rather than gasoline.
Third, the writer argues that hydrogen is much efficient rather than gasoline in respect of producing of energy. On contrary, the professor counter-argues this idea and points out that this is a superficial explanation. She asserts that to prepare hydrogen as a fuel we should consume a lot of energy to purify hydrogen in a practical form. Taking this amount of enegy into account, it doen not show any benefits rather than gasoline in terms of efficient energy producing. She avers that this is a misleading information that hydrogen can run car for more milage in contrast of gasoline, because it did not consider enegy that used to purify hydrogen.
With the speculation by many leading geologists that petroleum reserves will be exhausted within the next fifty years, a number of alternatives to petroleum have been proposed. One of the most promising alternatives being researched is hydrogen cell technology, which could easily replace traditional gasoline as fuel for automobiles. The adoption of hydrogen as an alternative fuel has many advantages.
First, hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements on the planet. It is a naturally occurring element that can be found around the world. One of the most common sources of hydrogen is H20, or water, which consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Since water makes up over seventy-five percent of the Earth, hydrogen would be an ideal source of energy for nearly all countries on the planet.
Moreover, hydrogen can be concentrated and stored in small containers called "cells." Hydrogen cells are smaller and far easier to transport than gasoline, since they can simply be stacked on a truck for transportation instead of carried in a large tank. Unlike gasoline, which can leak out of the tank and catch fire if there is an accident, hydrogen cells' easily transportable form makes them far safer to move.
Additionally, when placed in cars, hydrogen is much more efficient than gasoline. It takes far more gasoline to move a car across a certain distance than it does for hydrogen. In fact, hydrogen fuel cells can transform twice as much energy into power as gasoline can. Adopting hydrogen cell technology in automobiles would vastly improve the efficiency of our vehicles. As such, countries looking to adopt new sources of energy would be wise to research hydrogen as an alternative fuel source.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, look, moreover, so, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 22.412803532 36% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1452.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14893617021 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91966960461 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581560283688 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.23620309051 24% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4859553614 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.714285714 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1428571429 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.71428571429 7.06452816374 38% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141685966265 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0590392377481 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0366899797567 0.0662205650399 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0931468208356 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0220099625168 0.0443174109184 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.