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 is about ethanol is not a good alternative for gasoline. It provides three supporting ideas in order to bolster its claim. But, the speaker says, ethanol will be a good replacement of gasoline. He refutes each of the reading claim.
First, the article asserts that using ethanol will intensify global warming. However, the lecturer denies this claim. He describes, global temperature will not rise for ethanol because plants will counteract to release carbon dioxide. As result, plant helps to remove the carbon dioxide and keep the temperature stable.
Second, the written excerpt states that, ethanol use will reduce available use of plants to use as food source. But, the professor refutes this and he explains, as the plant part cellulose is not eaten by animals and it is optional. So, using these part will not a bad choice. And food availability for animals will not reduce.
Third, the reading claims that, the cost of ethanol is high. The point is not convincing with the lecturer. The professor agreed that government tax subsidies is quite helpful to cut the ethanol production cost. But, he explains, when people buy enough ethanol, it will helps to downgrade the production cost. Moreover, he says by citing a study, where it was found, when production occurred three times, in return the market cost was down to 40 percent of that cost.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 271, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'help'
Suggestion: help
...when people buy enough ethanol, it will helps to downgrade the production cost. Moreo...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1146.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 228.0 270.72406181 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02631578947 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88582923847 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50063088377 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.539473684211 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 346.5 419.366225166 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.8651433446 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 67.4117647059 110.228320801 61% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.4117647059 21.698381199 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.05882352941 7.06452816374 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.156051266823 0.272083759551 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0561806646841 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0608251605239 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101310734338 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0351757704204 0.0443174109184 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.0 13.3589403974 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 53.8541721854 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.3 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 63.6247240618 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 10.7273730684 47% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.