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.
Both the reading article and the monologue present different aspects of effectiveness of the method "cloud seeding". While the author of the passage is convinced with the idea from the evidence of lab experiments, Asian countries, and from local studies, the speaker questions the cogency of these evidences. Indeed, she provides and illustrates some flaws in the evidences as mentioned by the writer.
To begin with, the author claims that formation of the snow in place of hails from the experiment on the relation between silver iodide and cold water accentuates the effectiveness of cloud seeding in the farming areas of US. In contrast, the professor considers it hypothetical, not an effective practical solution particularly in the draught and hot climate areas where rainfall is rare. Since, most of the crops are already struggling for waters, forming snows instead of water will cause a major threat to them, an effect that will overshadow the benefits as portrayed in the experiment.
secondly, the author mentions the success of cloud seeding in the cities of some Asian countries and concludes that it will result in same for the US farming areas as well. However, the speaker denies the claim and asserts that cloud seeding is effective in urban areas because of high amounts of pollutants that are fused regularly in those cities. As it is proven that, interaction between the pollutants and the cloud seeding brings benefits to the urban areas, they are widely practicing it in their towns. In contrast, it is not possible to implement in the farming areas as it is not contaminated with pollutions like as urban areas.
Last but not the least, the author refers to the outcome of local studies. He finds reveal the cloud seeding effective as damages by hail pieces have been reduced over time. Nonetheless, the professor is not convinced with this idea and affirms that the reduced effect is not related to the efficacy of cloud seeding. To bolster her point, she further mentions about the surrounding areas in which the damage has been reduced too without the use of cloud seeding. From that, she converges to the conclusion that natural variations of weather may be the probable reason behind the outcome of the study.
To conclude, the author tries to establish the effectiveness of cloud seed by mentioning some recent evidences, however, the professor refutes those with suitable counter evidences and explanations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Secondly
...fits as portrayed in the experiment. secondly, the author mentions the success of clo...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, well, while, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 30.3222958057 211% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2060.0 1373.03311258 150% => OK
No of words: 401.0 270.72406181 148% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13715710723 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.04702891845 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7475706715 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 145.348785872 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508728179551 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 631.8 419.366225166 151% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.8766723664 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.75 110.228320801 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0625 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0625 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.179984689365 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0592350015877 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0379394511774 0.0662205650399 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0971436162722 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0316143380754 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 63.6247240618 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.