The reading and the lecture are both about the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine as an alternative source of energy for cars. The author of the passage believes that the fuel-cell engines have three advantages so that they can replace the internal combustion engines. The lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She thinks that the author is way too optimistic about the hydrogen-based fuel-cells.
The first advantage claimed by the author is the fact that fuel cell engines use Hydrogen as available and renewable resource, instead of petroleum which is a finite resource. This point is challenged by the lecture. She says that even though the hydrogen is renewable, it’s not directly available and usuable. To be used, hydrogen must be in a pure liquid state and kept in a cold temperature, which according to her, is so difficult to obtain and needs highly performing technologies.
Secondly, the author states that the use of hydrogen-based fuel-cells will give us the chance to avoid the pollution issues by decreasing the release of carbon dioxide in the environment. He explains that the fuel-cell engines uses water as an eco-friendly resource. The lecture rebuts this argument. She thinks that these engines doesn’t solve the problem of pollution because the production of pure hydrogen needs to burn oil and coll which is very harmful to the environment.
Finally, the author mentions that the hydrogen alternative is very economic. He is of the opinion that fuel-cell engine is cheaper than the internal-combustion engine. The lecturer, on the other hand, states that this argument is wrong because the fuel-cells engine requires platenium to be manifactured. She puts forth the idea that platenium is a rare and expensive metal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 267, 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.
...eplace the internal combustion engines. The lecture casts doubt on the claims made ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, second, secondly, so, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1492.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25352112676 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01063544927 2.5805825403 117% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528169014085 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.9498185682 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.25 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.75 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 7.06452816374 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.506958290741 0.272083759551 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.163423357628 0.0996497079465 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.142014225792 0.0662205650399 214% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.325512466356 0.162205337803 201% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0724338832558 0.0443174109184 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.