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 and lecture are both about the fuel, Ethanol. The author feels that ethanol can never be a good alternative to gasoline and he had three reasons for his support. However, the professor contradicts all the claims made by the author. He is of the opinion that these explanations are faulty.
To begin with, the writer mentions that, the increased use of ethanol would not help to solve global warming. In the article, it is said that Ethanol, when used as fuel releases carbon dioxide and thereby traps heat. The professor refutes this by proposing that, ethanol is from plants like corn and these plants use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. So growing plants for ethanol will reduce the amount of this gas from the atmosphere that is compelling.
Secondly, the author suggests that the production of ethanol decreases the number of plants available for uses as a potential source of food for animals and humans. On the other hand, the professor's stand is that the ethanol can be made from cellulose - which is the substance seen in the cell wall of plants. He ensures that this part of plant is not eaten by animals and thereby the animal feed will not reduce.
Finally, the reading posits that Ethanol can never be able to compete with gasoline on price. On the contrary, the professor argues that, if the ethanol production increase, it will in turn drops the price of ethanol. Consequently, more ethanol will be available to use.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, however, if, second, secondly, so, on the contrary, to begin with, 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: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1206.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 248.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86290322581 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96837696647 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51146305051 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.540322580645 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 374.4 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.8665359245 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.1428571429 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7142857143 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.64285714286 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.28217696296 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100116756889 0.0996497079465 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.062969287837 0.0662205650399 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176429726214 0.162205337803 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0254911008379 0.0443174109184 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => 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: 10.61 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.