Smart cars are very good because they are quick, safe, and cheap.
The text and the lecture offer two opposing views about pros and cons of using smart cars. While the reading passage lists benefits of smart cars and tries to support each of these by corroborative details, the professor refutes each of the author's reasons and rejects the new technology as not being such beneficial for humans in the future.
First, the article posits that smart cars are safer than currently used cars because of a reduced toll of accidents. On the contrary, the lecturer repudiates the reason given by stating that the embedded technologies, which preclude accidents, in smart cars might fail occasionally. In addition, since smart cars move closer to each other than normal cars, should an accident occur, it will precipitate more damages than in the case of a usual car. Thus, the smart car technology would not necessarily result in a safer drive.
Next, the author claims that smart cars are faster, and so save people's time. In contrast, the professor refutes the causes by explaining that the history of human's traffic behaviour clearly manifest that as driving gets more convenient, more people will be tempted to drive their own cars. Therefore, higher speeds presented by new cars will culminate in an increased number of cars making it difficult for cars to reach higher speeds, thereby squandering even more time of people.
Finally, the passage avers that smart cars are overall less costly than usual ones. On the other hand, the lecturer opposes this claim and states that some technologies which are exploited by smart cars are very expensive. For example, the global positioning system and the sensors that help keep the distances of cars are costly innovations. What is more, the new technologies utilized in these smart cars would have more costly repair operations. According to the lecturer, these expenses will outweigh the savings made the smart cars' reduced need to pedestrian repairs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...h beneficial for humans in the future. First, the article posits that smart car...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t necessarily result in a safer drive. Next, the author claims that smart cars ...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... squandering even more time of people. Finally, the passage avers that smart ca...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, if, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, in addition, in contrast, on the contrary, what is more, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1615.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09463722397 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52194342298 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570977917981 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 494.1 419.366225166 118% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.695142471 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.357142857 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6428571429 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.64285714286 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 4.33554083885 254% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.23600014797 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0980861899751 0.0996497079465 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0468164508921 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149311847859 0.162205337803 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0575404775084 0.0443174109184 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => 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: 12.54 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.