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 and the lecture are both talk about the growing popularity of Self driving cars over the regular IC engine cars. While the author of the article argues that self-drive cars are the hot picks for the future, the lecturer disputes the claims mentioned in the article. Their position is that these autonomous vehicles are more trouble inducing than the problem they attempt to solve.
Firstly, according to the article, the writer’s principal point was that most of the accidents take place due to human errors, hence if software replaces human decision making then the drives will become safer than manual drives. Building on that, the article also mentions that their current car model, has driven over one million kilometres without causing any accident, which makes them safer than most of the drivers in the world. The lecturer challenges this specific argument when they claim the software, sensors and computers are prone to errors and bugs, hence their chances of failing are not as good as the article makes them out to be. Additionally, they also point out that the aforementioned car model had a severe accident last month, thus reliability on these systems is feeble at best.
Secondly, the author suggests self-drive cars are more energy and petrol efficient in urban settings. They also go onto note that the frequent start stops of cars, which causes fuel wastage, can be easily avoided in cars that can communicate with each other. Although, the speaker asserts that as car becomes easier to drive, the age and technicality restrictions will do down drastically, causing a surge in the number of cars on the road. Thus, effective petrol management may be useless in front of the increased traffic on the roads.
Finally, the author put forward the idea that self-drive cars can give driver and pillions time to conduct their quotidian tasks of the day. They contend with that part average commute in the US is over an hour per day, thus with autonomous vehicles, this time can be used to work, or read or any other daily activity. In contrast, the lecturer’s stance is that in today’s fast paced lifestyle, driving can be a time where people can unwind and relax. They try to claim, such time to be driver’s relaxing space, where they have a timeout from the regular activities. They even fear of this time becoming another part of the day to work or waste time in.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 30.3222958057 162% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1996.0 1373.03311258 145% => OK
No of words: 408.0 270.72406181 151% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.89215686275 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.04702891845 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43512518754 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 145.348785872 165% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588235294118 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 618.3 419.366225166 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.742514299 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.75 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.1875 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => 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: 0.236665655345 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0808446819158 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0514937721038 0.0662205650399 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151673708342 0.162205337803 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0483478162188 0.0443174109184 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 63.6247240618 168% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.