Car manufacturers and governments have been eagerly seeking a replacement for the automobile's main source of power, the internal-combustion engine. By far the most promising alternative source of energy for cars is the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine, which uses hydrogen to create electricity that, in turn, powers the car. Fuel-cell engines have several advantages over internal-combustion engines and will probably soon replace them.
One of the main problems with the internal-combustion engine is that it relies on petroleum, either in the form of gasoline or diesel fuel. Petroleum is a finite resource; someday, we will run out of oil. The hydrogen needed for fuel-cell engines cannot easily be depleted. Hydrogen can be derived from various plentiful sources, including natural gas and even water. The fact that fuel-cell engines utilize easily available, renewable resources makes them particularly attractive.
Second, hydrogen-based fuel cells are attractive because they will solve many of the world's pollution problems. An unavoidable by-product of burning oil is carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide harms the environment. On the other hand, the only byproduct of fuel-cell engines is water.
Third, fuel-cell engines will soon be economically competitive because people will spend less money to operate a fuel-cell engine than they will to operate an internal-combustion engine. This is true for one simple reason: a fuel-cell automobile is nearly twice as efficient in using its fuel as an automobile powered by an internal-combustion engine is. In other words, the fuel-cell powered car requires only halfthe fuel energy that the internal-combustion powered car does to go the same distance.
The reading suggests that hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine is a proper candidate for car's source of power, and can replace internal-combustion engine. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas dubious and presents some evidence to refute them all.
The author argues that petroleum is not an infinite source and internal-combustion engines depend on this source of power. On the other hand hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines are better choices since they use hydrogen which is an easily available and renewable source. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that hydrogen is not an easily available substance. Although it is found in water but it cannot be used directly and should be in pure liquid state and it is highly artificial. It is very difficult to produce and store this material, since the process should be done in very advanced lab and in very cold temperature. So it is not a practical solution.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine helps preventing air pollution since its only by-product is water. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that maybe the cars using hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine wouldn't pollute the environment, but the purification process of hydrogen is involved with burning oil and coil which certainly would pollute the environment.
Finally, the reading asserts that hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine is cheaper than internal-combustion engine since the former requires half of the fuel energy which the latter needs. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that hydrogen needs platinum which is a very expensive component to undergo in chemical reactions. So this is not totally cost effective.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 92, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to prevent' or 'prevent'.
Suggestion: to prevent; prevent
...t hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine helps preventing air pollution since its only by-product...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 262, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...s using hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine wouldnt pollute the environment, but the purifi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, furthermore, however, if, may, so, in contrast, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1465.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 268.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46641791045 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19414100448 2.5805825403 124% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559701492537 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 458.1 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9262947313 49.2860985944 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.692307692 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6153846154 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.30769230769 7.06452816374 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.239844907211 0.272083759551 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0850787882687 0.0996497079465 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12023673562 0.0662205650399 182% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162146852939 0.162205337803 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0823167952798 0.0443174109184 186% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.