simulated meat
Both the reading and the lecture talk about how people can eat meat that can be more better for them and healthier. The reading part supports the idea that scientists have made some methods to create simlated meat for the people to eat and stay safe and healthy. However, the lecture disputes the facts made in the reading. It says that that simulated meat will not be as benefitial as they predicted.
To begin with, the passage states that simulated meat is better for the enviornment, because it is made from plants and does not cause as much pollution. This particular fact is desputed by the professor. He said that even though the simulated mead causes less contamination to the evvoirnment, it also has negative effect to the envoirnment. He supports the idea that making simulated mead will need to use a lot of chemicals that can be harmful for the grassland.
Second, the author of the reading says that the simulated meat is much healthier for the people, because it contains less fat that is not healthy for the people. On the other hand, the professor of the lecture does not agree with the statement made in the reading part. He says that, it is true that mead has more fat, but meat has other vitamins and minerals that simulated mead does not.. It is havely proccessed using a lot of oil and sodium that can be harmfuil to individuals health.
Finally, the passage supports the idea that simulated meat is much safe for the people because it contains less bacteria. Yet, the lecturer does not agree with that. He says that it is true that there are few bacteria in the simulated meat, but there are a lot of other ingredients that are not labeled and the people can get allergic reactions, because they do not know what they are eating.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 81, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'better' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: better
...out how people can eat meat that can be more better for them and healthier. The reading par...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 388, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive dots
Suggestion: .
...nd minerals that simulated mead does not.. It is havely proccessed using a lot of ...
^^
Line 4, column 108, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun bacteria is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...safe for the people because it contains less bacteria. Yet, the lecturer does not ag...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, second, so, it is true, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 22.412803532 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1443.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.61022364217 5.08290768461 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41246427382 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444089456869 0.540411800872 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 438.3 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.9676214549 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.2 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8666666667 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 7.06452816374 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 0.354098419488 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133571256442 0.0996497079465 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120076965769 0.0662205650399 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.256810870159 0.162205337803 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0155779526487 0.0443174109184 35% => 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: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.46 12.2367328918 77% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.3 8.42419426049 87% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.