Ethanol fuel, made from plants such as corn and sugar cane, has been advocated by some people as an alternative to gasoline in the United States. However, many critics argue that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline for several reasons.
First, the increased use of ethanol fuel would not help to solve one of the biggest environmental problems caused by gasoline use: global warming. Like gasoline, ethanol releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when it is burned for fuel and carbon dioxide is greenhouse gas: it helps trap heat in the atmosphere. Thus, ethanol offers no environmental advantage over gasoline.
Second, the production of significant amounts of ethanol would dramatically reduce the amount of plants available for uses other than fuel. For example, much of the corn now grown in the United States is used to feed farm animals such as cows and chickens. It is estimated that if ethanol were used to satisfy just 10 percent of the fuel needs in the United States, more than 60 percent of the corn currently grown in the united stated would have to be used to produce ethanol. If most of the corn were used to produce ethanol, a substantial source of food for animals would disappear.
Third, ethanol fuel will never be able to compete with gasoline on price. Although the prices of ethanol and gasoline for the consumer are currently about the same, this is only because of the help in the form of tax subsidies given to ethanol producers by the United States government. These tax subsidies have cost the United States government over $11 billion in the past 30 years. If the United States government were to stop helping producers in this way, the price of ethanol would increase greatly.
Recently, there has been a ton of debates about the pros and cons of using ethanol as a source of energy and a good replacement for gasoline. More specifically, according to the passage, the writer puts forth the idea that there are three conundrums of using ethanol as a fuel. In the listening, the lecturer is quick to point out there are some serious flaws in the writer's claims. The professor believes that ethanol is a good alternative for gasoline and not one of the reasons in the reading passage is convincing, and addresses, in detail the trouble with each point made in the reading text.
First and foremost, the author of the reading states that ethanol releases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and does not have any environmental advantage. Some professionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. In listening, such as the professor states that producing ethanol would remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. She goes on to say that ethanol is made of plants that would absorb carbon dioxide from the air as apart of its nutrition.
One group of scholars, represented by the writer, thinks that ethanol's production process would decline noticeably the amount of corn available as a source of food for animals. Of course, though, not all experts in this field believe this is right. Again, the speaker specifically addresses this point when he states that ethanol is produced from cellulose which is not eaten by animals.
Finally, the author wraps his argument by positing that ethanol price is high compared to the price of gasoline. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes this issue with his claim by contending that in the future the demand for ethanol will increase. Thus, the production rate of ethanol will climb and eventually, its price will drop remarkably.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 457, Rule ID: APART_A_PART[2]
Message: Wrong collocation. Did you mean 'apart from'?
Suggestion: apart from
...d absorb carbon dioxide from the air as apart of its nutrition. One group of schol...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 63, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'ethanols'' or 'ethanol's'?
Suggestion: ethanols'; ethanol's
... represented by the writer, thinks that ethanols production process would decline notice...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, so, thus, of course, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1523.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 304.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00986842105 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17559525986 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67312395381 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523026315789 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 473.4 419.366225166 113% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.7414896393 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.785714286 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7142857143 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.07142857143 7.06452816374 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265960456255 0.272083759551 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.083052235097 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0502079185758 0.0662205650399 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145025809216 0.162205337803 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0564104655651 0.0443174109184 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25 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.