The article and the professor are mainly argued about the advantages of the fuel- cell engine over an internal combustion engine in the automobiles. The article states that the car manufacturing companies and the government rely on the hydrogen-based fuel cell, having more advantages than the oil combustion mechanism and provide three reasons to support. However, the professor says that although the readers claim is correct to point out the problems with the gasoline engine it is optimistic and it is not the solution, because it wouldn't easily available. She refused each of the author's opinions.
First, the passage states that the internal combustion technology purely depends on the oil sources like patrol and other gases, but one-day this ran out. In contrast, hydrogen gas can obtain the variety of resources. The professor says that it is not easy to obtain hydrogen gas. She mentioned that it should be in a pure liquid form and it needs an extream cold temperature of approximately -253 degrees, technically it is not easy.
Second, the article avers that the hydrogen cell method is a solution for world pollution because it releases the water as a by-product, unlikely, the internal combustion technique release the carbon dioxide as a by-product, which is harmful to the society. The professor contended this point by saying hydrogen gas not solve the pollution problem. She illustrated that pure hydrogen only releases the water as a by-product, but for the purification, it needs to burn the cole and the gases to process, which release more pollution than the internal combustion technique cars.
Third, the article posits that the hydrogen cell automobiles having less operating cost. However, the lecture opposes this point by saying its manufacturing process is very expensive. She illustrated that it needs to instill platinum metals to make the chemical reaction, replacing the other metals, changes the engine performance.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 536, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
... and it is not the solution, because it wouldnt easily available. She refused each of t...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 332, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...metals, changes the engine performance.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, still, third, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1644.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28617363344 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83631907702 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511254019293 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 514.8 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => 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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.1541735158 49.2860985944 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.428571429 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2142857143 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42857142857 7.06452816374 63% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.395871835772 0.272083759551 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.12109642358 0.0996497079465 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105824677903 0.0662205650399 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.218758402329 0.162205337803 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103072490631 0.0443174109184 233% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.