fuel cell engines
The reading passage states that replacement internal combustion with the fuel cell engines is more useful. However, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on the points made in the reading.
First, considering the article the internal engine is relies on petroleum, and petroleum is a finite resource but hydrogen in the full cells can be derived from various plentiful sources. In contrast, the professor in the lecture contradicts the idea and further explains that pure hydrogen can not easily and directly access and for derived it from water or any other sources needs cooling technology and with this conditions hydrogen is not easy to use.
Second, the author in the reading passage puts forward the idea that hydrogen based fuel cells will solve the world's pollution problems. In the same way, the speaker validates the idea and adds that in the hydrogen purification process we use of oil and petroleum for purification and derivation and it is not true to talk about fuel cells can solve many problems about air pollution.
Third, the author in the reading passage claims that fuel cells are affordable and people will spend less money to operate fuel cell engine. Admittedly, the professor justified the information presented in the reading and makes the points that from manufactory view materials and metals used in this kind of engines are rare and expensive.
To sum up, both the writer and speaker hold a conflicting view about fuel cells engines.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 417, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'conditions'' or 'condition's'?
Suggestion: conditions'; condition's
... needs cooling technology and with this conditions hydrogen is not easy to use. Second,...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 111, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'worlds'' or 'world's'?
Suggestion: worlds'; world's
...ydrogen based fuel cells will solve the worlds pollution problems. In the same way, th...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, third, in contrast, kind of, to sum up, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 7.30242825607 219% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1239.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 243.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0987654321 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94822203886 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55469724425 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.539094650206 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 379.8 419.366225166 91% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.266826679 49.2860985944 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.666666667 110.228320801 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0 21.698381199 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2222222222 7.06452816374 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.377845454608 0.272083759551 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.164793232521 0.0996497079465 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.127303353812 0.0662205650399 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.224278587248 0.162205337803 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.083669994392 0.0443174109184 189% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.