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 states that using hydrogen-based fuel cell engines have a large number of advantages which makes it as a good alternative for internal-combustion engine. The lecturer, however finds the idea dubious and casts doubt on the reasons proposed by the reading passage.
The author argues that since Hydrogen can be obtained from various sources, it can be a good replacement for the finite source of petroleum used in internal-combustion engines. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that hydrogen is not available as it has mentioned in the passage. It needs a complex, expensive technology to provide pure liquid hydrogen from water, and the form of hydrogen presented in water cannot be useful directly in fuel-cell engines.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that this approach can be considered as a solution for pollution associated to cars. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that the technology of getting pure hydrogen from water needs lots of energy, which should be provided by oil and other types of petroleum. As a result, the pollution will not be declined.
Finally, the reading states that it is cost saving option for people, because the fuel-cell powered cars needs less fuel energy than internal-combustion powered cars for a same distance. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that it does not cost less, because during the performance of fuel-cell automobiles platinum are required which is a rare and expensive metal. Moreover, all projects of replacing the platinum with a cheaper metal were uncessessfull, so this technology may end up costing people with more money.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 69, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...g hydrogen-based fuel cell engines have a large number of advantages which makes it as a good alt...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
...asons proposed by the reading passage. The author argues that since Hydrogen can b...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, furthermore, however, may, moreover, so, in contrast, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1396.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22846441948 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09383246085 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561797752809 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => 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: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.1902348885 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.909090909 110.228320801 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2727272727 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.36363636364 7.06452816374 133% => OK
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 : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284029757747 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0947276337223 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108879437765 0.0662205650399 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158689522836 0.162205337803 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0710087534882 0.0443174109184 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.