Nuclear energy
The article discusses the benefits of nuclear energy and supports the idea of replacing nuclear energy instead of fossil fuel. And it provides 3 reasons for support. But the professor disagrees with this idea and refutes article's each reason. He thinks that the idea of using nuclear energy is premature, and the consequences of it are unknown.
First, the passage states that nuclear energy is cheaper than fossil energy. But the professor refutes it and says that producing nuclear energy takes much more time than fossil fuels and so the costs increase. Also because of legislation to guarantee safety, the nuclear power plant builders need to pass many legislations and it yields to a higher price in the nuclear energy.
Second, the article states that nuclear energy is relatively safe. However, the professor states that it is true that now orders prevent catastrophic phenomena but still there are some devastating ones. For example, the nuclear power plant explosion in Pennsylvania even didn't damage the public, but it was very bad in the finance aspect, and it cost about 1 billion dollars to prevent and repair it. Also, it damaged the people psychologically.
Third, the article says that the radioactive waste of nuclear energy is manageable effectively, and it stated that by reusing these wastes, the radioactivity of them reduces. But the professor refutes this and, claims that during reprocessing uranium converted to plutonium, but it is still so dangerous. So these wastes have to put underground for hundreds of years. Even if the government could find appropriate places, the citizens and political confront them by legal issues.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 212, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...fossil fuels and so the costs increase. Also because of legislation to guarantee saf...
^^^^
Line 5, column 272, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...er plant explosion in Pennsylvania even didnt damage the public, but it was very bad ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, still, third, for example, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 7.30242825607 246% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1399.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23970037453 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.722751133 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554307116105 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.51434878587 594% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.7931618936 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.2666666667 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.464235682192 0.272083759551 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.163557160443 0.0996497079465 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.182338054008 0.0662205650399 275% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.293058579963 0.162205337803 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.126623466244 0.0443174109184 286% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.