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 tosolve 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 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 excerpt states that many critics argue that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline for several reasons, the author provides three reasons for support. However, the lecture's audio claims that there are a lot of problems with the author theories and he refutes each of them by stating that the cause of these arguments is not obvious.
To begin with, the article avers that the increased use of ethanol fuel would not help to solve one of the biggest environmental problems caused by gasoline use: global warming. In contrast, the professor opposes this point of view by saying that the ethanol will not add anything to the global warming and it is right that the burning of it will release carbonic dioxide. However, it is produced by the plants such as corn and these plants when grown, they will take the carbonic dioxide from the air. So, planting a myriad amount of plants to produce this gas will reduce this harmful gas from the environment. Consequently, this theory contradicts what the professor explained.
Second, the passage posits that the production of significant amounts of ethanol would dramatically reduce the number of plants available for uses other fuel. On the other hand, the speaker asserts this outlook and explains that the ethanol will not reduce the food resources for animals because they can use the cellulose which is the plants covering substance for ethanol production and this substance does not eat by the animals. Thus, this dispute the second point of the passage.
Third, the excerpt mentions that ethanol fuel will never be able to compete with gasoline on price. This cast doubt on what the lecturer argued which states that even if the ethanol will compete with the gasoline in price, people will use to use much ethanol which will lead to producing more amount of it and this will, in turn, make its price cheap. Thus, the cost of the ethanol will decrease by forty percent more as the production increase three times in the future. Thus, this idea of the author is definitely wrong.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 185, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lectures'' or 'lecture's'?
Suggestion: lectures'; lecture's
...three reasons for support. However, the lectures audio claims that there are a lot of pr...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 420, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...nol will decrease by forty percent more as the production increase three times in ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, however, if, look, second, so, third, thus, in contrast, such as, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1705.0 1373.03311258 124% => OK
No of words: 349.0 270.72406181 129% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88538681948 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.34932908121 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504297994269 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 520.2 419.366225166 124% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.237513263 49.2860985944 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.785714286 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9285714286 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
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 : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.26026692205 0.272083759551 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0928777338057 0.0996497079465 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0987793931343 0.0662205650399 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173878737884 0.162205337803 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0632643003906 0.0443174109184 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.