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 passage states that driverless cars are beneficial to human life. The article posits three reasons for such a notion. However, the lecturer argues against this statement pointing out that this advancement may not lessen our troubles in any way.
First, The reading states that the amount of traffic accidents will drop, due to softwares not making the same errors as human beings. The professor refutes this notion pointing out that the softwares are also written by humans; hence, they may contain errors. For example, the self-driving car stated in the article which had no accidents even after driving for more than one million kilometers had an accident last month.
Second, The passage claims that due to self-driving cars being deriven more efficiently they would benefit the environment. The lecturer refutes this point by explaining that with no need for drivers licence and no age restrictions the amount of people using cars will increase. Therefore, there would be more pollution even if the cars are driven efficiently.
Third, The article states that because driverless cars don't require attention for driving the time lost during commute to and from work can be used by the passengers. The professor opposes this point by explaining that according to a particular research many people consider driving a relaxing action that allows them to distract themselves from their troubles. However, by using driverless cars instead of relaxing passengers will watch videos or catch up on work which we spend most of our time doing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 56, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...cle states that because driverless cars dont require attention for driving the time ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, therefore, third, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1297.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 249.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20883534137 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97237131171 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55872779916 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59437751004 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 386.1 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.2964707581 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.083333333 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.75 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.58333333333 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.181811918576 0.272083759551 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0702906928166 0.0996497079465 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0471750596141 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111973556811 0.162205337803 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0288700425743 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.