The author in the passage mentions myriad of advantages about the smart cars technology. Three prominent benefits stated in the passage about introducing and using smart cars are prevention of accidents, disappearance of traffic problems and reduction in costs of driving, repairs, parts, etc. However, the speaker refutes these benefits by mentioning several disadvantages.
While the passage says that smart cars will save lives by preventing accidents, the speaker counters it by stating that technological errors also occur in computer devices and may lead to some accidents even if smart cars are used. Also, she elaborates by saying that the accidents can be lot more worse than the accidents that occur today. So, using smart technology in cars won't reduce any accidents.
Additionally, the speaker says that when some convenient technology is introduced, more and more people start to use it. So, the speaker disagrees with the idea stated in the passage that smart car technology will reduce traffic problems. Instead, she says that introducing this technology is likely to cause additional congestion.
Finally, smart cars won' t bring any reduction in costs because transporting them to their destination will incur more expenses is stated by speaker. Also, the repairs would be more expensive for them. More amount of spending would be required for additional car parts used in this technology that can be saved in traditional cars. Thus, the speaker disproves the advantages stated in the passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 242, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s, disappearance of traffic problems and reduction in costs of driving, repairs, ...
^^
Line 3, column 294, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'worse' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: worse
...by saying that the accidents can be lot more worse than the accidents that occur today. So...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, may, so, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1285.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 238.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.39915966387 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80663777359 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.53781512605 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 395.1 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.8236655177 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.8461538462 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3076923077 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.69230769231 7.06452816374 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207521755045 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0817883062234 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0757091092872 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136510655615 0.162205337803 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0501088273014 0.0443174109184 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.