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 and the lecture discuss about the evidences on the use of cloud seeding to combat the effects of Hail. The author states that there are numerous evidences in support of the the use of cloud seeding to reduce the problems cause by hails to farmers. Nonetheless, the professor refutes this point by stating that those evidences doesn't seem strong and a lot of questions have been raised concerning them, and contradicts each of the points made in the reading.
First of all, the writer avers that experimental results support the claim that cloud seeding is very effective. According to the article, silver iodide to water vapour produces light snow rather than hail pellets. However, the lecturer rebuts this claim by saying this result can actually be gotten only under laboratory condition, in real life the silver iodide will also prevent other form of precipitation such as rain. This will eventually expose the field to risk of drought.
Secondly, the reading passage mentions that because cloud seeding has been used to control precipitation in urban regions in Asian, it is equally going to be useful in protecting the farms in the United State. This specific argument is challenged by the speaker. She contends that this method can only work in the areas that are polluted, this is because the pollutants creates a favourable working environment for the cloud seeding to take place. In the area where there is no pollution, it is very unlikely that cloud seeding will work.
Finally, the author posits that the results conducted by local studies proves that cloud seeding will work, comparing the damage caused by the hail the previous year with the present year shows that cloud seeding is very useful. Nevertheless, the professor opposes this point by revealing that even the regions where cloud seedling were not used experienced the same effect. This clearly means that what happened in central United States might actually be as a result of natural cause and not due to cloud seeding.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 187, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...re are numerous evidences in support of the the use of cloud seeding to reduce the prob...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 187, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...re are numerous evidences in support of the the use of cloud seeding to reduce the prob...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 345, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...s point by stating that those evidences doesnt seem strong and a lot of questions have...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 44, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ondly, the reading passage mentions that because cloud seeding has been used to c...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1687.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 336.0 270.72406181 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02083333333 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28139028586 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4536935201 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 145.348785872 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544642857143 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 510.3 419.366225166 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9226871562 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.5 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5 7.06452816374 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => 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: 0.156960576359 0.272083759551 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0570517662617 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0323135002467 0.0662205650399 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0989430709077 0.162205337803 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.011975621677 0.0443174109184 27% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.