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 both about the pros and cons of applying "cloud seeding" as a novel way to reduce hail damages which can ruin the agricultural products. As well as, this process is using silver iodide. Whereas the author of the reading passage states that utilizing the process is beneficial according to the laboratory experiments, evidence from Asia, and local studies, the lecturer repudiates the idea. She casts doubts on the three main points made in the reading passage by providing three alternative peremptory reasons.
To begin with, even though the author mentions that results derived from various experiments in laboratories are convincing and showing the roles of silver iodide in mitigating hail formation, the lecturer rejects this idea. Actually, she claims that the process is useful, while it can reduce the formation of the rain, snow, and other precipitations. Consequently, it can extend the agricultural damages because of reducing available water for plants. Thus, this idea is problematic.
Secondly, in the reading section, on the one hand, the author posits that there is convincing evidence coming from Asia which shows that cloud seeding can be used effectively to control the precipitation. On the other hand, the lecturer says that using the method can exacerbate the air pollution in big cities. Indeed, the concentration of the pollutant can take a nosedive by raining, however, the cloud seeding, which reduces the raining, will exacerbate the pollution. Hence, this idea is not feasible.
Last but not least, although reading section affirms that using cloud seeding focuses on local areas, the lecturer mentions that it can influence on other near areas, too. For instance, it reduces the raining in other areas which has a great interference with the natural variations as well as it has not a great positive result.
To wrap things up, although the reading and the lecture are both about evaluating the pros and cons of cloud seeding, the three main points made by the author are challenged effectively by the lecture.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 365, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...concentration of the pollutant can take a nosedive by raining, however, the cloud seeding,...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, consequently, hence, however, second, secondly, so, thus, well, whereas, while, for instance, as well as, 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: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1750.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 334.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23952095808 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77031383537 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505988023952 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 539.1 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => 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: 6.0 1.25165562914 479% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.4572660924 49.2860985944 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.666666667 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2666666667 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2 7.06452816374 144% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.123856238773 0.272083759551 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0414386652596 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0371394576869 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.073049065876 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399124205874 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.