Cloud seeding
The reading and the lecture both discuss cloud seeding, a process of converting hail into rain or snow. In this set of materials, the article strongly postulates three pieces of evidence to support cloud seeding. The speaker, on the other hand, refutes the effectiveness of this method by raising questions and gainsays each of them.
First and foremost, the author strongly supports the conclusion made as a result of laboratory experiments. However, the professor states although it is true that by using silver iodide, we can convert pieces of ice into snow, but this can only be effective up to the laboratory. He explains this method is not practical at all since silver iodide prevents the precipitation of clouds. This will result not only in a dry spell but also crop damage due to lack of water. Moreover, the professor directly challenges this evidence by aiming that it is a bad idea for the rain system of the world.
Secondly, the professor is definitely not convinced by the reports obtained from different parts of the world. He describes that urban areas mean pollution, coming from automobile traffic and industries. It is surprisingly true that pollution particles respond well to clouds and seeding chemicals, but this process is only limited to urban areas. Besides, this process might not work in an unpolluted region, for instance, in rural areas. This claim refutes the author's implication of evidence from Asia.
Ultimately, the article wraps its arguments by asserting the hypothesis of local studies. The professor, in response, thinks that the authentification of this study is not convincing at all. The research indicates that cloud seeding not only affects the specific area but also the surroundings. He directs that in previous years the reduction in crop damage is not because of cloud seeding. In fact, it is because of the variation in climate. So, it can be concluded that Cloud seeding is not the real reason at all.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 464, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... in rural areas. This claim refutes the authors implication of evidence from Asia. U...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, well, for instance, in fact, as a result, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => 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: 1639.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 324.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05864197531 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78933637702 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543209876543 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 500.4 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.1132203492 49.2860985944 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 86.2631578947 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0526315789 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.84210526316 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.214942898726 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0692709571032 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11544969554 0.0662205650399 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143514092813 0.162205337803 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116934934052 0.0443174109184 264% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.77 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 63.6247240618 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.