Hail—pieces of ice that form and fall from clouds instead of snow or rain—has always been a problem for farmers in some areas of the United States. Hail pellets can fall with great force and destroy crops in the field. Over the last few decades, a method of reducing hail, called "cloud seeding," has been tried. In cloud seeding, the chemical silver iodide is sprayed on storm clouds from an airplane. This makes the clouds produce harmless rain or snow instead of hail. Several pieces of evidence suggest that cloud seeding has been effective in protecting crops from hail.
Laboratory experiments
Experiments in the laboratory support the idea that cloud seeding is effective. Hail usually forms water vapor that is close to the freezing point However, when experimenters added silver iodide to cold water vapor in the laboratory, they often observed light snow forming instead of hail pellets.
Evidence from Asia
There is evidence about the effectiveness of cloud seeding from several countries around the world. In some Asian countries, for example, cloud seeding has been successfully used to control precipitation in urban areas. These positive results suggest that cloud seeding should also be effective in protecting fields and farms in the United States.
Local studies
A few local studies also support the value of cloud seeding. One study conducted in a farming region in the central United States, for example, directly monitored crop damage due to hail. The study found that in an area where cloud seeding was used there was reduced hail damage compared to previous years.
The reading and lecture are about effectiveness of cloud seeding method, which is utilized for reducing the amount of hail and protect the ranches from hail. In the reading, three proof which champions possibility of the method. The lecturer proposed questions for each solution and these three explanation may be faulty.
To begin with, the author posits that the silver iodide changed the form of precipitation from hail to steep in the laboratory condition. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer because the real life circumstances are different from the situation inside the building. The lecturer mentions that the chemical probably confine all precipitation including snow and rain to be dropped on the ground by vaporizing them. Therefore, it will cause another harmful effect by posing drought although it prevents the hail damaging the crops.
Secondly, in the article, it is stated that observation in the Asian countries proved that cloud seeding can be expedient because the method dealt with precipitation well. Nonetheless, the lecturer rebuts this interpretation by stating that pollution which interacts the method in the municipal areas are not available in the rural area. Therefore, the approach may be unsuccessful in the farming section since there is no pollution.
Finally, the author of the article claims that direct examination proved that damage of the precipitation was reduced in the area where cloud seeding was employed. By contrast, the lecturer states that destruction diminished also in the neighboring area on which the chemical was not used, which means the reduction of damage was not caused by the cloud seeding but pleasant climate condition.
The lecturer challenges the evidence which supports the method mentioned in the article by these three ways.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, may, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 5.01324503311 379% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1538.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 283.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43462897527 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83095109617 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544169611307 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.3663695046 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.307692308 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7692307692 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.23076923077 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.166730402423 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0604756091284 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484855613645 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0894636062176 0.162205337803 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0418104066531 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => 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.