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 a 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 States 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 the producers in this way, the price of ethanol would increase greatly.
The reading and the lecture are about ethanol. More specifically, in regard to the reading passage, the writer put forth three reasons why ethanol fails to be a good substitute over gasoline. The lecturer, however, is quick to point out that those reasons aren’t clear. In fact, he believes and outlines three reasons that make gasoline a good alternative.
First and foremost, the author of the reading states that excessive use of ethanol would not solve an environmental problem such as global warming. The lecturer on the other hand stands in firm opposition to this claim. He states that a high rise in ethanol would not add up to global warming because ethanol simply originates from corn and the process of its growing alters the release of carbon dioxide, therefore growing plants eliminates carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Secondly, the writer feels that an appreciable amount of ethanol will reduce plant availability for uses other than fuel. Again, the speaker addresses the point when he states that large scale production does not decrease the source of food because ethanol is produced from cellulose and majorities of the cellulose are found on part of the plant. Therefore the source of food for animals would not be reduced.
Finally, the author brings his argument to a close by suggesting that ethanol can not be in competition with gasoline in terms of price. Not surprisingly, the professor rebutted this claim by contending that ethanol will always be in competition with gasoline because the government has reduced its rate and this has really made it to be cost-effective. Moreover, large production of ethanol results in low prices which are three times greater, and the production cost will automatically drop by forty per cent.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 349, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...llulose are found on part of the plant. Therefore the source of food for animals would no...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, therefore, in fact, such as, in regard to, 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: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1493.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1660899654 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70694410093 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560553633218 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.0487055794 49.2860985944 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.846153846 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2307692308 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3076923077 7.06452816374 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.264353455758 0.272083759551 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868568080271 0.0996497079465 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0456104895722 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148560324138 0.162205337803 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0263005781208 0.0443174109184 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 349, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...llulose are found on part of the plant. Therefore the source of food for animals would no...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, therefore, in fact, such as, in regard to, 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: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1493.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1660899654 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70694410093 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560553633218 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.0487055794 49.2860985944 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.846153846 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2307692308 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3076923077 7.06452816374 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.264353455758 0.272083759551 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868568080271 0.0996497079465 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0456104895722 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148560324138 0.162205337803 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0263005781208 0.0443174109184 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.