Both the article and the lecture discuss the fuel -cell engines from different point of views. The author of reading believes that the fuel -cell engines have several benefits and he gives three reasons to support his idea. However, the lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He opposes that none of those ideas are convincing.
First of all, the author of the reading points out that there are a lot of available resources to make the fuel -cell engines, even it can make from natural water. This point is challenged by the lecture. He says that people cannot generate electric hydrogen directly from water. In fact to make fuel cell engines, it has to be obtained from pure liquid and this process requires a lot of works.
Secondly, the author of the reading contends that the fuel -cell engines do not pollute to the environment as the gases do. The lecture rebuts this idea that even though fuel –cell engines are not harmful to the environment, the factories that produce them have to burn oil and coal and they generate amount of carbon dioxide in to the air.
Finally, the author of the reading states that the cost of using fuel –cell engines is cheaper twice than the internal - combustion. The lecture on the other hand, opposes this argument. He refutes that fuel -cell engines cannot save money as the reading has mentioned. Moreover, he puts forth the idea that the fuel -cell engines makes from platinum, meanwhile this material is very rare and expensive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 405, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...is material is very rare and expensive.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, while, as to, in fact, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1237.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77606177606 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.2579871384 2.5805825403 87% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.517374517375 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 383.4 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
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: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.5163237257 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.3571428571 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.57142857143 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.400913945284 0.272083759551 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149399042792 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0983575141664 0.0662205650399 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.26992249557 0.162205337803 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.054462088031 0.0443174109184 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.