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.
Both reading and lecture are about a replacement for automobiles' source of energy. Based on the reading passage, the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines are beneficial. But the lecturer takes a stance against the author's opinion by providing three reasons.
At first, the author mentions that internal-combustion engines depend on petroleum. Relying on the fact that petroleum is a finite source of power, someday, we will run out of oil. The author clarifies that hydrogen is renewable and infinite resources that can be used for fuel-cell engines. The lecturer puts forward that hydrogen is not as available as the author alludes to. The lecturer manifests that fuel-cell engines need pure and liquid hydrogen and obtaining this is difficult and it can not easily available.
Add to this, the author, in the reading, gives another explanation which is about another advantage of using hydrogen as a fuel of the engines, that is solving air pollution. The lecturer practically repudiates the claim of the context relying on this expression that achievement of pure hydrogen needs more energy which can obtain by burning oil. On the other hand, hydrogen can cause air pollution on the other way.
Finally, the author claims that the fuel-cell engine uses less fuel, obviously, it is not expensive. However, the lecturer sheds light on the premise that using hydrogen can not be a way of saving costs. It is a momentous fact that manufacturing pure and liquid hydrogen is so expensive, so using hydrogen is not benefit economically.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 211, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...the lecturer takes a stance against the authors opinion by providing three reasons. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 379, 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.
... as available as the author alludes to. The lecturer manifests that fuel-cell engin...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, so, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1290.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 248.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20161290323 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96837696647 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90312499825 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.532258064516 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 409.5 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.3772406836 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.1428571429 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7142857143 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92857142857 7.06452816374 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241341006702 0.272083759551 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0912538237443 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0652772920356 0.0662205650399 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158113507572 0.162205337803 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0635979501519 0.0443174109184 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.