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 in 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.
To begin with, the writer states that the experiments in laboratory support the cloud seeding is useful. However, the lecturer argues that while in the laboratory, the cloud seeding is effective, it does not indicate it would have the same result in real lives. The cloud seeding would lead the cloud doesn't form hail, rain or snow. Thus, it damages the crops due to lack of water. For this reason, she can not give a nod to the author in terms of the first point.
Secondly, the reading passage suggests that the cloud seeding has been applied in Asia countries and there is evidence about the effectiveness of cloud seeing. The professor, on the other hand, points out that the applications in Asia countries are in urban area where there are air pollutions. The condition in urban area is favorable for the silver iodide. Hence, the effectiveness of cloud seeding may not be occurred in the field of crops. Apparently, she disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In addition, the author claims that a farming region in the center US used the clouding seeding and the hail damage reduced whereas the speaker thinks the study is not convincing. She thinks it is nature variation in local weather as the decrease of hail has also happen in the neighboring area such as east, south and north field. As a result, she does not support this argument.
It is obvious that the writer and the professor hold conflicting views on this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 302, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... The cloud seeding would lead the cloud doesnt form hail, rain or snow. Thus, it damag...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 503, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sproves its counterpart in the reading. In addition, the author claims that a fa...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 265, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'happened'.
Suggestion: happened
...eather as the decrease of hail has also happen in the neighboring area such as east, s...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, first, hence, however, may, second, secondly, so, thus, whereas, while, in addition, such as, as a result, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1196.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 250.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.784 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97635364384 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51600953893 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.552 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 355.5 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.8613306516 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.4285714286 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8571428571 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2142857143 7.06452816374 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.168697914215 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0552218139453 0.0996497079465 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0529421029429 0.0662205650399 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0852365126059 0.162205337803 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0574262610648 0.0443174109184 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 13.3589403974 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 53.8541721854 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.15 12.2367328918 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.