These days, if you pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV or radio, you may hear or
read about the advantages of driverless cars, also called self-driving or autonomous
cars. The technology is simple to understand: using sensors and computers, these
cars can drive without input from a human. This might sound like science fiction, but
such vehicles are already on our roads and they will have a positive impact on our
driving experience.
Traffic accidents are a leading cause of injuries and fatalities in the United States,
and studies show that most crashes are caused by human error. The software that
runs driverless cars is not capable of making mistakes. As a result, such vehicles will
be much safer. One technology company has a self-driving car that has driven for
over 700,000 miles – over one million kilometers – without an accident: a better
record than all but the best human drivers.
In addition, self-driving vehicles are good for the environment because they drive
more efficiently. On a typical journey within a city, drivers deal with urban traffic by
stopping and starting their engines repeatedly. This type of driving means engines
work less efficiently and this causes a lot of pollution. Driverless cars, on the other
hand, can communicate with other vehicles, which will reduce traffic problems.
Autonomous cars will be able to start and stop their engines less often and travel at
higher speeds.
Finally, autonomous cars will give passengers time. Instead of having to focus on
driving, human occupants can focus on other things. The average time for
commuting to and from work in the United States is about thirty minutes each way.
Instead of using this time to focus on the road, passengers in driverless cars can
read, watch videos, or catch up on work.
The reading passage elucidates the advantages of driveless cars and corroborates its usefulness with the help of three well-rounded explanations and examples. The speaker, on the other hand, is critical of these views and goes on to challenge each of these examples.
First, to refute the assertion of safer driving, thanks to driveless cars, the speaker emphasizes on the fact that computer softwares are designed by humans. Thus, even automation guidances are prone to errors. She further goes on to add that even the self-driving car that had driven over a million kilometer without any accident had hit another car in the last month and was all over the news. Hence, the claim of the author doesn't hold true.
Second, to support the postulation that self-driving vehicles are environment-friendly, the reading states that owing to its automation, these cars shall need to restart their engines less often and would be able to travel at higher speeds. However, the speaker is quick to challenge this hypothesis. According to her, with relaxation of the need of driving licenses and age barriers, the number of cars shall rise, leading to a rise in the pollution level. Henceforth, even with lesser emission, pollution levels would rise.
Lastly, the speaker ridicules the claim of obtaining more time by driving automated cars. As per her opinion, driving is considered to be a relaxing activity with most people listening to music or radio during that time. Thus, working or watching videos on driveless cars shall affect the passengers as they would lose out on their leisure time.
In conclusion, although the passage and lecture shares diamterically opposite views, they raise pertinent questions on the cost and benefit of automated cars.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 428, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...he news. Hence, the claim of the author doesnt hold true. Second, to support the po...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, lastly, second, so, thus, well, in conclusion, 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: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1476.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 283.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21554770318 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84079601332 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593639575972 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 448.2 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.4199936998 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.428571429 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2142857143 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.21428571429 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.180662930373 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0506492784125 0.0996497079465 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0507495884102 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0903236174243 0.162205337803 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0542346245548 0.0443174109184 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.