The lecture and the article are both about fuel-cell engines, which use hydrogen to produce energy. The article claims that fuel-cell engines are better than traditional engines, and will supersede traditional engines. The lecturer, however, states that the author’s claims are too optimistic and casts doubt on the claims made in the article.
First, the reading states that hydrogen is a ubiquitous element and can be derived from various sources. The lecturer, on the other hand, says that hydrogen is plentiful, yet it is no in useable form. It should be in pure liquid state to be used by fuel-cell engines. The technology to produce and store liquid hydrogen is very difficult. According to the lecturer, hydrogen should be stored about -250 degree Celsius. Therefore, it is not practical and easily attainable to use hydrogen as fuel.
Second, the author contends that fuel-cell engines can solve pollution problem. Traditional engines use oil as fuel and, inevitable output of burning oil is carbon dioxide which harms the environment. The lecturer casts doubt on this claim. According to the lecturer, hydrogen engines will not produce carbon-dioxide directly, but the purification process of hydrogen, which has to be done to be used as fuel, requires a lot of energy which was produced by burning coal and oil in the first place. Therefore, car will not pollute the environment, but the factories, which produce hydrogen, would pollute the environment.
Third, the passage claims that fuel-cell engines will catch up the traditional engines in terms of financial aspect. The author states that fuel-cell engines is twofold more efficient than the traditional engines. This arguments challenged by the lecturer. She posits that manufacturing fuel-cell engine is quite expensive. Platinum, which is a rare and expensive material, is a must for fuel-cell engines to perform. The endeavors to replace this expensive material with a cheaper one, has failed so far.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 220, 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.
...and will supersede traditional engines. The lecturer, however, states that the auth...
^^^
Line 3, column 182, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...s that hydrogen is plentiful, yet it is no in useable form. It should be in pure l...
^^
Line 7, column 215, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: These
...efficient than the traditional engines. This arguments challenged by the lecturer. S...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, third, as to, in the first place, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1674.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3482428115 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82173565771 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498402555911 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 520.2 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.8831117857 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.7 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.65 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95 7.06452816374 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.454738714897 0.272083759551 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.154260432483 0.0996497079465 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104895143767 0.0662205650399 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.295228384978 0.162205337803 182% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0854872526643 0.0443174109184 193% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.45 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.