ethanol instead of gasoline
The main idea of both the passage and the lecture is about the possibility of the gasoline replacement by the ethanol that made from corn and its advantages and disadvantages. Considering this, the author claims that ethanol has many important disadvantages that make it an impossible replacement for gasoline even though it attained broad popularity as an alternative fuel. The professor, on the other hand, categorically denies whatever mentioned in the reading through citing three reasons.
First, both the author and the professor talk about starvation in the world, and impact of ethanol production from corn on food supply. According to the passage, production of the ethanol needs a lot of corn, so this food supply is used to create a fuel instead of feeding people of the world. The lecturer, nevertheless, rejects the author’s view and illustrates the idea that the world currently has enough food to feed all the people of the world. He states that starvation is cussed by unstable governments, war, and lack of transport - not because of food shortage.
Second of all, both the reading and the lecture discuss the issue of ethanol production environmental problems. The passage goes on to mention that although ethanol has less pollution than gasoline, farming of corn in order to the production of ethanol would create a severe amount of soil erosion. Nonetheless, the lecturer supports a contradictory view as compared to that presented in the reading; he describes that today, conservation efforts become so advanced and it reduced soil erosion caused by corn production, therefore large-scale farming of corn is not a problem.
Eventually, the passage and the lecture both discuss the amount of energy that needs in order to produce ethanol from corn. The author of the reading passage states that production of ethanol needed more gasoline, so countries will have to ship in more oil in order to run the ethanol factories; however, the speaker refutes it, saying that this will be provided by coal and natural gases, not by gasoline.
All in all, the author maintains that ethanol is not a good substitution for gasoline because of its disadvantages that mentioned in the passage, while the professor not only completely casts doubt on it, but he also demonstrates that the claims against the ethanol are faulty and the benefits are many. So we will soon see ethanol taking the place of gasoline.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, while, 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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 30.3222958057 185% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2036.0 1373.03311258 148% => OK
No of words: 397.0 270.72406181 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12846347607 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86024129721 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.481108312343 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 635.4 419.366225166 152% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.668310367 49.2860985944 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.428571429 110.228320801 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.3571428571 21.698381199 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.21428571429 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281686286516 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0942056815667 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0675225162186 0.0662205650399 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150714955793 0.162205337803 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0447984101192 0.0443174109184 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.7273730684 144% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.