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.
The reading passage and the lecture offer opposing views regarding the use of ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. While the author of the article presents three drawbacks of using ethanol as an alternative fuel, the professor in the lecture is of the opinion that the reasons in the article are unconvincing.
To begin with, the author argues that an increase in use of ethanol as fuel would add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and thus would exacerbate the global warming problem. However, the professor claims that growing process of corns, to be used for ethanol production, would reduce carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. He mentions that those plants will absorb carbon dioxide, which is a nutrient for them, from the atmosphere; no added carbon dioxide would be released by introduction of use of ethanol as a fuel.
Secondly, the writer of the article suggests that foods for animals would vanish as corn and sugar cane plants would be used for ethanol production. In the article, it is said that cows and chickens live on corns, and using those plants for ethanol production would not leave sufficient foods needed for those animals. But the lecturer mentions that ethanol is produced from cellulose rich part of corns which are usually not used as food for animals. Thus increased use of those plants for ethanol production is not going to create food scarcity for those animals.
Finally, the lecturer argues against the idea of the passage that price of ethanol fuel would increase in future, which is going to frustrate the plan to use it as an alternative to gasoline. He believes that increase in plants production would eventually reduce the cost of ethanol fuel. According to him, price of ethanol would drop by 30% for three times of production as it is now of corns or such other plants.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 104, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...at price of ethanol fuel would increase in future, which is going to frustrate the plan t...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, while, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1513.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 309.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89644012945 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53060362631 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.436893203883 0.540411800872 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 475.2 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.1256027199 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.083333333 110.228320801 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.75 21.698381199 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.83333333333 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.270199315422 0.272083759551 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131666315056 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0282596059501 0.0662205650399 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179470397887 0.162205337803 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0334157852025 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.