The author had good hopes about future smart cars, which drive themselves. How they would be safe, quick and cheaper than the conventional cars. On the other hand, the professor in the lecture was arguing about these hopes and gave her reasons why.
First of all, the passage points out that there will be less accidents because of smart cars. The author supported their claim by explaining how sensors with new technology combining with computer brains prevent cars from accidents. Whereas, the lecturer did not agree with the fact, and opposed that even the best technological devices would make mistakes. Further she added that since smart cars would be more tight with lots of equipment, when they crash, a huge pile of cars would be damaged. Hence, the professor disagreed.
Next, the reading was discussing reducing traffic, because there will be harmony among cars, the author believed. In contrast, the professor reminds them that there will be abundant numbers of cars on the roads, which will cause more extreme traffic. Separately, the passage explains cars can increase their speed on highways. The lecturer also argued to this statement by giving the same reason, car abundance.
Lastly, the author encouraged smart cars with their reduced costs for driving, repairing, and they added that changing parts would last long because of computer control, so that changing parts would be cheaper. However, the professor disagrees, and explains how expensive global localization technology is. In addition, she contrasted reduced cost by pointing out that the cost of sensors in smart cars would be much more expensive than conventional cars. In fact, she thinks that repair would cost.
Overall, while the passage was encouraging how beneficial smart cars will be in the future, the lecture was standing against the advantages given.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 57, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun accidents is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...e passage points out that there will be less accidents because of smart cars. The au...
^^^^
Line 9, column 130, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'advantages'' or 'advantage's'?
Suggestion: advantages'; advantage's
...e, the lecture was standing against the advantages given.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, lastly, so, whereas, while, in addition, in contrast, in fact, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26689189189 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44702594866 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550675675676 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 448.2 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.23620309051 182% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.849216601 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.7058823529 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4117647059 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.23529411765 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.213689071022 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.068772010351 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0497716216929 0.0662205650399 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12058539211 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0557065138752 0.0443174109184 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.99 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.