The author describes that the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines have several advantages over internal-combustion engines and provides three reasons to support this claim. On the other hand, the lecturer states that even though internal-combustion engines harm the environment and petroleum is a finite resource, hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines do not solve the problem and the reading is too optimistic in its assessments and refutes each of the author's reasons with rational grounds.
First of all, the writer states that internal-combustion engines rely on petroleum, which is a finite resource, and it will run out in the future. Nevertheless, the professor states that hydrogen is not easily available. Although Hydrogen is present in water, it cannot be directly usable. Hydrogen can be obtained in the pure liquefied state, which is an artificial substance, and need high technology, such as elaborate cooking technology to produce practical hydrogen.
Second, according to the reading hydrogen-based fuel cells are environmentally friendly fuels which are a good solution for pollution problems. Conversely, the speaker brings up the idea that despite the fact that hydrogen-based fuel cells do not harm the environment, the purification process of hydrogen produces a lot of pollution. To be more specific, purification is accompanied by burning coal and oil which cause lots of pollution.
Third, the writer expresses that using fuel-cell engines is cheap. However, the lecturer posits that fuel-cell engines process needs platinum, which is a rare and expensive metal and has a crucial role in a chemical reaction in the engine for the sake of producing electricity in the automobiles.
Therefore, the points mentioned in the reading do not make any sense.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, third, such as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1501.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55925925926 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35176181586 2.5805825403 130% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574074074074 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.2591954789 49.2860985944 149% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.083333333 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.66666666667 7.06452816374 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.512051931433 0.272083759551 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.187400222437 0.0996497079465 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.123112512318 0.0662205650399 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.247464256301 0.162205337803 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.140686493117 0.0443174109184 317% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.2367328918 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.