smart cars
The reading and the lecture are both about smart cars. While the author of the article puts forth three reasons why smart cars are advantageous, the lecturer disputes his arguments. His stance is that smart cars are more harmful than traditional cars.
The article states that smart cars will prevent accidents and hence save lives. The author mentions that smart cars are equipped with a variety of sensors that accurately detect other cars and obstacles in their way which makes the smart cars safer. The lecturer, however, challenges this specific argument and argues that even the most technologically advanced car can get in accidents because devices occasionally fail. He adds that, If the smart cars are closely packed on the road, it might cause accidents and pileups of cars. This will cause a greater number of accidents than in traditional cars.
Secondly, the author mentions that due to smart cars, traffic problems will disappear. The article also states that computer-controlled cars can follow each other more closely even at high speeds, this will reduce commute time. In contrast, however, the lecturer’s stance is that, since smart cars claim to reduce commute time, more people will be inclined to use cars to commute. Consequently, as the number of cars on the roads increases, the commute time will increase rather than decrease.
Finally, the author claims that smart cars will reduce the cost of driving. He contends that expensive parts of cars will require fewer repairs and replacements because they will follow a direct commute route. The lecturer contradicts this argument and asserts that the Global Positioning Software used by smart cars to navigate is very expensive, as are other advanced technologies such as a variety of sensors. He adds that these advanced technologies in a smart car are more expensive to repair and replace than the parts of a traditional mechanical car.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 250, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...r way which makes the smart cars safer. The lecturer, however, challenges this spec...
^^^
Line 3, column 441, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... number of cars on the roads increases, the commute time will increase rather than decrease...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, while, in contrast, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1607.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16720257235 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6776284797 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491961414791 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 491.4 419.366225166 117% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1498443058 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.4375 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4375 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 4.33554083885 254% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.556975924844 0.272083759551 205% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.238504237026 0.0996497079465 239% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.139536818645 0.0662205650399 211% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.406731270937 0.162205337803 251% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0630647426643 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.