Smart Cars
Both author and lecturer discuss whether smart cars will make driving safer, faster and less expensive. The former argues in support of these whereas, the latter contradicts all of these points.
First of all, the passage states smart cars will result in less deaths and eventually saving more lives. However, the listening rebuts as there is always a chance of failure in case of machines which may result in more devastating accidents and killing more people. In addition, as they are supposed to drive very close to each other in comparison to today’s human driven cars, in case of accident it may trigger chain reaction damaging more cars and causing injuries to additional people.
Second of all, the reading claims that smart cars will be responsible to solve traffic problems. On the other hand, the professor counters this as smart cars will make driving easier, more people will start to own a car resulting increase in number of cars. Due to this increase in number of cars, the traffic problem will increase further resulting similar kind of traffic problems as today’s.
Finally, the text asserts cost of driving a car will decrease. In contrast, the lecturer argues that as smart cars are equipped with many modern sensors, which are usually expensive to operate, the cost of operating them will rise further. Similarly, the cost of maintenance of this sensors should also be accounted. All these would result in extra money being spent which could spend the money saved by owning a smart car.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 60, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun deaths is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...assage states smart cars will result in less deaths and eventually saving more lives...
^^^^
Line 7, column 279, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
.... Similarly, the cost of maintenance of this sensors should also be accounted. All t...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, may, second, similarly, so, whereas, as to, in addition, in contrast, kind of, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => 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: 1269.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 253.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01581027668 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98822939669 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3854008729 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569169960474 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 378.9 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.5893506083 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.75 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0833333333 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.1666666667 7.06452816374 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
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: 0.36511110766 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.157169364351 0.0996497079465 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.127261638199 0.0662205650399 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.237200357285 0.162205337803 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0536640383964 0.0443174109184 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.