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 suggests that the fuel-cell engines will soon replace internal-combustion engines because of many advantages, whereas the professor believes that the passage is too optimistic about it and the fuel-cell engine would not be the solution of the problems which internal-combustion engines caused.
To begin with, the reading indicates that the hydrogen needed for the fuel-cell engines is easily available and renewable. The professor, however, argues that the resource that fuel-cell engines utilize is not such available, because the hydrogen is difficult to produce and store. Hydrogen need to be obtained form pure sources and to be stored under an extreme low temperature which makes it not so available as the passage claims.
Furthermore, the author of the reading claims that hydrogen-based fuel cells can solve many of the world's pollution problems, because burning hydrogen only produces water without carbon dioxide, which is harmful to our environment. In contrast, the professor suggests it would not solve the pollution problem, as the procedure of producing hydrogen for fuel-cell engines need a lot of energy from the burning of coals or oil, which would produce pollution. Although the cars using the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines don't produce pollution, the factory which produce hydrogen would.
Finally, the writer claims that people spend less money to operate a fuel-cell engine on the basis evidence that a fuel-cell automobile is nearly twice as efficient in using its fuel as an internal combustion engine automobile. On the contrary, the professor indicates that it's not that cheap to manufacture a fuel-cell engine due to the fact that it uses Platinum, a kind of rare metal and the necessity of the chemical reaction between the fuel, to produce a fuel-cell engine, which would cost a lot of money.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 100, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'worlds'' or 'world's'?
Suggestion: worlds'; world's
...-based fuel cells can solve many of the worlds pollution problems, because burning hyd...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 519, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ng the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines dont produce pollution, the factory which pr...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, furthermore, however, if, so, whereas, in contrast, kind of, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1567.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 291.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38487972509 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9514959592 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494845360825 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 489.6 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 32.0 21.2450331126 151% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.5608144731 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 174.111111111 110.228320801 158% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.3333333333 21.698381199 149% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.1111111111 7.06452816374 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.345535614052 0.272083759551 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.164144016366 0.0996497079465 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0566578462129 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220309599679 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0207053661491 0.0443174109184 47% => 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: 20.1 13.3589403974 150% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.54 53.8541721854 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 11.0289183223 154% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.52 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 10.498013245 141% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.