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.
In the given set of materials, the reading passage and the lecture discuss fuel cell engine as the future source of energy for cars. The reading passage provides three main highlights on the advantages of utilising internal combustion engines. However, the lecture refutes each of the author's claim stating that the mentioned points are not convincing.
First, the author mentions that petroleum used as gasoline or diesel fuel, are limited resources and may soon get depleted. Therefore, hydrogen based fuel is a better alternative as it will always be available. However, the lecturer contends this theory and mentions that although hydrogen is abundant in nature, it is difficult to use as a fuel energy. Hydrogen needs to be converted in pure liquid state and stored at very cold temperature. It needs to be stored at -250 C, which is cumbersome.
Secondly, the passage details on reduction in environmental pollution with the use of hydrogen-based fuel cells. However, the lecture highlights that the process of producting pure hydrogen causes a significant amount of pollution as it requires burning of abundance of coal and oil. Therefore, the cars using hydrogen as fuel may not cause environmental pollution but the factories producing pure hydrogen in liquid state will bring enough pollution to harm the environment.
Finally, the reading passage supports its claim by mentioning the fuel-cell engine to be less expensive for people compared to internal-combustion engine. However, the lecturer contradicts this theory by highlighting that fuel-cell engines cannot be cost effective because the main ingredient for producing fuel-cell engine is petroleum, which is a highly expensive material. Any other alternative cheaper material was found to be less effective compared to platinum.
In conclusion, while the reading passage details three theories to prove fuel-cell engines to be helpful for powering up cars, the lecture casts aside each of the author's theories highlighting the shortcomings of his beliefs with convincing reasons and evidences.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 83, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...etails three theories to prove fuel-cell engines to be helpful for powering up ca...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1755.0 1373.03311258 128% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50156739812 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00521848381 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526645768025 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 545.4 419.366225166 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.1103399443 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.0 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2666666667 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.13333333333 7.06452816374 87% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.252073707632 0.272083759551 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0853793988884 0.0996497079465 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0721419311198 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139606904457 0.162205337803 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0549630387622 0.0443174109184 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.