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 half the fuel energy that the internal-combustion powered car does to go the same distance.
The reading passage and the lecturer talking about replacement the automobile's main source of power, the internal-combustion engine because of numerous disadvantages in contrast to the fuel cell engine. But, the professor has a cast doubt about this argument and that’s seems to him unconvincing due to many reasons.
First of all, the allegation of the script poses that the fuel for cell engine simply available because we can use simple products to get fuel like for instance, water and hydrogen. In contrast to the professor who asserts that the hydrogen not really easily find. Moreover, we need pure hydrogen and that will be artificial kind of hydrogen. Furthermore, it’s so hard to produce and store that specific type of hydrogen.
Secondly, the writer asserts that hydrogen-based fuel cell impact the world’s pollution problem in properly way. Because the only byproduct of the fuel cell is water. In contradict to the narrator whose insist that the fuel cell still has the pollution issue. Additionally, that will need a lot of purification to get pure hydrogen as well as will lead to burn materials like for instance, coal and oil.
The last but not the least, on one hand the topic suggests that the fuel cell engine much cheaper. Actually, the essay agree that plethora of people can afford it because it’s economically much convenient to get it. On the other hand, the aerator believes that the fuel cell engine is so expensive. For example, the platinum part is one of the essential parts of that engine which is so rare and much higher in price than the other type of engine.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 119, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...os;s pollution problem in properly way. Because the only byproduct of the fuel cell is ...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n price than the other type of engine.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, furthermore, if, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, still, well, for example, for instance, in contrast, kind of, talking about, as well as, first of all, in contrast to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1356.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0036900369 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7970528386 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531365313653 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6579183743 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.8571428571 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3571428571 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 15.3571428571 7.06452816374 217% => Less 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 : 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: 0.249355967504 0.272083759551 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0810986963481 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0727735884659 0.0662205650399 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149258023853 0.162205337803 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0349288653709 0.0443174109184 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.