The article states that fuel-cell engines are much better than internal-combustion engines and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that the proposed idea is too optimistic as well as impractical and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that due to limitation of petroleum sources, it is better to exploit hydrogen fuel in engines instead of petroleum derivations, since by and large hydrogen available in almost everywhere in natural gas and water, by exerting it in cars the demands for petroleum will decrease. The professor refutes this point by stating that even though decreasing petroleum usage is good idea hydrogen is not the solution, because it is not easily accessible and a very complex process needed to obtain it, and it doesn't result directly from water and natural gas.
Second, the article claims that using hydrogen as a fuel in cars can solve environmental pollution problems. However the professor contends that in the hydrogen providing process a lot of pollution is going to produce, because it is a very intricate process and needs to a lot of energy and materials.
Third, the reading avers that fuel-cell engines are going to be more economical than old engines, because they use less fuel than internal-combustion engines. The lecture opposes this point by saying that fuel-cell engines are too expensive due to high tech materials that need to making them, and a lot of endeavors have been done to provide them with cheap materials but they had been unsuccessful.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 182, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...derivations, since by and large hydrogen available in almost everywhere in natura...
^^
Line 2, column 526, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...lex process needed to obtain it, and it doesnt result directly from water and natural ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 109, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...solve environmental pollution problems. However the professor contends that in the hydr...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, second, so, third, well, as well as, by and large
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1300.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15873015873 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90143143272 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.543650793651 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 407.7 419.366225166 97% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 31.0 21.2450331126 146% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.4887722143 49.2860985944 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.5 110.228320801 147% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.5 21.698381199 145% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.75 7.06452816374 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.431850040012 0.272083759551 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.184427305085 0.0996497079465 185% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.125329964341 0.0662205650399 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.241015514731 0.162205337803 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0728276475705 0.0443174109184 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 13.3589403974 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.0289183223 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.24 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.498013245 137% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.