The lecturer objects to the fact mentioned in the reading passage about creating a new type of broccoli. The speaker states that the notions in the passage have issues.
The speaker suggests the claim about growing locally will reduce the price is wrong. We need to explore this theory suggested in the passage in more detail. Although they can survive on the hot East Coast, the yield will be much less. The decrease in the production of broccoli will lead the farmers to sell them at a higher price which will cancel out the savings on transportation. This strongly contrasts with the author's claim that local broccoli will reduce the price.
The professor claims that the argument about new breeding technology is mistaken. There is evidence to show a different view. Customers will suspicious about the new broccoli. This is because the company funding the money on the invention has created GMO vegetables. People will not buy the vegetables that are related to this company. This cast doubt on the author's argument.
Finally, the lecturer points out that the explanation concerning that it is healthier to eat right after they are harvested is untrue. We cannot conclude just by looking at the hypothesis suggested in the reading. There are already healthy foods that contain similar nutrition. People should be educated to eat fresh foods that are available in their region rather than harvesting new broccoli. This goes against the writer's view.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...he notions in the passage have issues. The speaker suggests the claim about growin...
^^^
Line 3, column 359, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...to this company. This cast doubt on the authors argument. Finally, the lecturer points...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, if, look, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 0.0 7.30242825607 0% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1216.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04564315353 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50385285315 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576763485477 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 363.6 419.366225166 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.1646203521 49.2860985944 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 67.5555555556 110.228320801 61% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.3888888889 21.698381199 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.16666666667 7.06452816374 17% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.136207896695 0.272083759551 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0412677961761 0.0996497079465 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0351503166194 0.0662205650399 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0801091889611 0.162205337803 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0110430093507 0.0443174109184 25% => 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: 9.1 13.3589403974 68% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 53.8541721854 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.