The article states that car maunfacturers are eagerly seeking to replace internal-combustion engines with hydrogen-based engines in automobiles because it has several advantages and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that it is correct about internal-combustion engines that they have some disadvantages but fuel-cell engines are not better than them and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that the main problem with internal-combustion engines is petroleum, and petroleum is a finite substance. On the other hand, fuel-cell engines need hydrogen which is more available and doesn't deplete easily. The professor refutes that by saying that hydrogen is not available easily. She states that it is correct that it needs water but it obtains from pure liquid and it's artificial and making hydrogen needs very cold temperature and hard process.
Second, the article posits that burning petroleum makes dioxide carbon and it harms the environment. On the other hand fuel-cell engines byproduct is water. However, the professor says that it is true about internal-combustion byproduct but fuel-cell engines make more pollutions.
According to the professor, the factories that make hydrogen have to burn oil and coil to complete the process of making hydrogen so even though the fuel-cell cars don't make pollution themselves but the factories that make hydrogen make much more air-pollution.
Third, the reading says that fuel-cell engines are much more economic compatible and people need to spend less money to operate them in contrast to internal-combustion engines. The professor opposes this point by explaining that it's completely wrong because of the rare materials that use for the fuel-cell engines. We also learn that they use platinum in making fuel-cell engines which is very rare and expensive material and even though many efforts happened to replace it so far all of them were unsuccessful.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 211, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ed hydrogen which is more available and doesnt deplete easily. The professor refutes t...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 165, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...rogen so even though the fuel-cell cars dont make pollution themselves but the facto...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, third, in contrast, in contrast to, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 7.30242825607 219% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1663.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 302.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50662251656 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17449521184 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 515.7 419.366225166 123% => 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: 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.94110456 49.2860985944 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.923076923 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2307692308 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.30769230769 7.06452816374 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.191257952398 0.272083759551 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0747085485071 0.0996497079465 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0458317849018 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113920152784 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0396676415498 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => 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.