The writer presents the problems with the internal combustion engine in cars and explains why the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine can be a promising alternate. The speaker, although agrees about the problems of combustion-powered cars, points out disadvantages making the fuel-cell engine an impractical solution.
First, according to the reading passage, unlike petroleum which is a limited resource, hydrogen used for fuel-cell engines is renewable and easily available. However, the lecturer claims that this is not true. She argues that hydrogen obtained from other sources has to be processed to a pure liquid state in order for it to be usable on fuel-cell engines. Such process can be very challenging to carry out since it requires freezing labs, thus making the use of hydrogen in fuel-cell engines unrealistic.
Second, it is believed by the author that hydrogen-based fuel cells can solve the world's pollution problems caused by burning oil. In contrast, the speaker correctly notes that the fuel-cell cars will be environmentally friendly yet their production causes serious harm to the environment. This is because in order to purify hydrogen, the factory will need to burn coal or oil, which will just produce more carbon dioxide as combustion cars do.
Third, while the writer claims that fuel-cell engines requires less fuel energy than normal automobiles, thus will be more cost-effective in the future, the lecturer casts doubt on that claim. He further explains hydrogen-based cars requires components made of platinum in order for necessary chemical reaction to take place and run the vehicle. The fact that platinum is a very rare and expensive will make fuel-cell cars unlikely to be economically competitive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 83, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'worlds'' or 'world's'?
Suggestion: worlds'; world's
...hydrogen-based fuel cells can solve the worlds pollution problems caused by burning oi...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, so, third, thus, while, as to, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1470.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42435424354 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0103464871 2.5805825403 117% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590405904059 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 451.8 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.5613736743 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.5 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5833333333 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.83333333333 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.