The both reading and the lecture are about the engine of cars. The writer states the hydrogen-based-fuel-cell engine have a good future and three reasons for support. On the other hand, the professor states problem which the write stated is correct but hydrogen-based-fuel cell engine also have problems and refutes each of author's claim.
First, the writer states core problem of internal combustion engine depend on petrol which is finite source. However, hydrogen is available from many sources. The professor refutes this claim. He states hydrogen is not solution because hydrogen is not directly usable. To get hydrogen from the water, liquid form of hydrogen need cold environment which is very hard to get. So, hydrogen is not easily available and not practic solution.
Second, the author claims hydrogen-based-fuel cell engine is solution for world's pollution problem. On the other hand, the professor casts doubt onto this claim by stating hydrogen do not solve the pollution problems. In fact even though hydrogen do not pollute, hydrogen-based-fuel cell engine would pollute.
Third, fuel cell engine eventually will be economically better than internal combustion engine. Conversely to this claim the lecturer claims fuel soil engine needs a particular metal which is palentium. It is rare and expensive. Hydrogen will not produce electricity without this special metal because of special chemical reaction. Other alternatives of this metal not safe and unsuccessful.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 222, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...and, the professor states problem which the write stated is correct but hydrogen-based-fu...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 97, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Conversely,
...better than internal combustion engine. Conversely to this claim the lecturer claims fuel ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, however, second, so, third, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 22.412803532 31% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1262.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 228.0 270.72406181 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5350877193 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88582923847 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14902506812 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.552631578947 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 388.8 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.3981370703 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.2352941176 110.228320801 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.4117647059 21.698381199 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.94117647059 7.06452816374 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.436565594927 0.272083759551 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.147085407632 0.0996497079465 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.130588078941 0.0662205650399 197% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.288622438403 0.162205337803 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0696948099295 0.0443174109184 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.82 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.26 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.