The article introduces the topic of driverless cars. More specifically, the writer discusses the benefits of using driverless car technology. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees. He believes that driverless cars are potentially dangerous and attacks each of the claims made in the reading.
In the reading, the author begins by stating that driverless cars are safer than ones operated by humans. In the listening, the speaker mentions that driverless cars are made by humans, which implies that they can malfunction. On top of that, the example mentioned in the article about the car that drove thousands of miles without an incident actually got into an accident just last month.
The author also claims that driverless cars are safer for the environment because they will be more efficient in managing when to stop and start the engine. Again, the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's logic. The speaker holds that more people will buy driverless cars because there will be fewer age restrictions. Younger teens and older seniors will be able to drive since they don't have to control the vehicle, which, in turn, will lead to an increase in emissions.
Another reason why the author feels that driverless cars are a more efficient alternative to the current driving system is that they provide passengers with increased time to focus on work and other important matters. The professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this extra time will be helpful. Most people enjoy the time they spend driving because they can listen to music and relax in a different type of environment. The lecturer believes that this extra time will be wasted with distracting entertainment or extra work.
To sum up, both the writer and professor hold conflicting views about driverless cars. It's clear that they will have trouble finding some common ground on this issue
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 210, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ecturer believes there are flaws in the writers logic. The speaker holds that more peop...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 396, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...eniors will be able to drive since they dont have to control the vehicle, which, in ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, if, so, to sum up, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1577.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08709677419 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58895637454 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529032258065 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 477.9 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.2361953042 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.7647058824 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2352941176 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.88235294118 7.06452816374 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.375284506566 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141750016788 0.0996497079465 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.134630259624 0.0662205650399 203% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.240494075821 0.162205337803 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.142899718908 0.0443174109184 322% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.