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 states that ethanol is not a good alternative for gasoline and put forward three major reasons. The speaker states that all the major reasons of the author are not convincing and casts doubt upon them by following counterpoints.
First, the written text claims that carbon dioxide is released on burning ethanol, which will add to global warming instead of pacifying its effects. Conversely, the speaker rebuts the statement saying that process of growing abundance plants for ethanol will contradict the effect of carbon dioxide, as growing plants will ultimately remove carbon dioxide from atmosphere.
Second, the passage advocates that ample amount of ethanol would reduce the fodder for animals such as cows and chickens. Also, as per estimations 10 percent of fuel needs in United states need more than 60 percent of the corn plants which is used to feed animals. In contrast, the lecturer challenges the statement saying that ethanol production uses cellulose from plants cell wall. Which is derived from parts of the plant not eaten by animals. So, problem like fodder reduction would not be there.
Third, the author advocates that ethanol fuel price will always be at hike as compared to gasoline, as they both stand apart in terms of price. Also,ethanol prices are subsidized by government. On the other hand, the speaker claims rebukes the statement saying that government must provide support to ethanol production until it is produced in abundance. With excess production, cost of production will be reduced by 3 times leading to decrease in price per unit by 40 percent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 386, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...n uses cellulose from plants cell wall. Which is derived from parts of the plant not ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 149, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , ethanol
...both stand apart in terms of price. Also,ethanol prices are subsidized by government. On...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, if, second, so, third, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1354.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 261.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1877394636 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55945006461 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593869731801 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 405.0 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.6262148254 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.153846154 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0769230769 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.07692307692 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.256778843062 0.272083759551 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0858788829194 0.0996497079465 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0630233110996 0.0662205650399 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147975213537 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0460625265696 0.0443174109184 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.