The reading and the lecture discuss the change from plastic bags to reusable bags which can benefit grocery stores, customers, and the environment. The author believes that this measure is advantageous. The professor supports some points and opposes to others made in the article, he considers that the popular tendency of getting rid of plastic bags is a good idea.
First, the author comes up with the idea that reusable bags can reduce the environmental waste. Its mentioned that 500B and more plastic bags are thrown away to the garbage yearly and they last around hundreds of years to disintegrate. However, the professor argues that reusable bags will be thrown away as well, and this will take hundreds or even thousands of years to disintegrate, as a result, landfills will be affected.
Second, the author states that grocery store will enjoy saving money with these reusable bags, although today plastic bags are not expensive, when they are bought in large amounts, they add up more costs. So, lower-priced reusable bags will result in cheaper products. The professor supports this argument by pointing out that renewable bags' cost will be one cent each one, which in the long run could add up to the products’ price as well, so it will not a great change there.
Third, the author contends that reusable bags will save petroleum because they will be used much time and will not require to generate more. The professor supports this idea by saying that actually, these reusable bags will help save money since petroleum which now is needed around 3B of gas petroleum to generate 380b bags, so more worthwhile proposal like this should coming out promptly
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 204, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...eves that this measure is advantageous. The professor supports some points and oppo...
^^^
Line 7, column 124, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'generating'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: generating
... be used much time and will not require to generate more. The professor supports this idea ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, however, second, so, third, well, while, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 5.04856512141 297% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1404.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 280.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01428571429 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48386630814 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532142857143 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 416.7 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.1535332492 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.636363636 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4545454545 21.698381199 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.27272727273 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.102504459476 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0474575866449 0.0996497079465 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0295362840884 0.0662205650399 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0698589453138 0.162205337803 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0264538828692 0.0443174109184 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => 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: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.