TPO-09 - Integrated Writing Task
Car manufacturers and governments have been eagerly seeking a replacement for the automobile's main source of power, the internal-combustion engine. By far the most promising alternative source of energy for cars is the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine, which uses hydrogen to create electricity that, in turn, powers the car. Fuel-cell engines have several advantages over internal-combustion engines and will probably soon replace them.
One of the main problems with the internal-combustion engine is that it relies on petroleum, either in the form of gasoline or diesel fuel. Petroleum is a finite resource; someday, we will run out of oil. The hydrogen needed for fuel-cell engines cannot easily be depleted. Hydrogen can be derived from various plentiful sources, including natural gas and even water. The fact that fuel-cell engines utilize easily available, renewable resources makes them particularly attractive.
Second, hydrogen-based fuel cells are attractive because they will solve many of the world's pollution problems. An unavoidable by-product of burning oil is carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide harms the environment. On the other hand, the only byproduct of fuel-cell engines is water.
Third, fuel-cell engines will soon be economically competitive because people will spend less money to operate a fuel-cell engine than they will to operate an internal-combustion engine. This is true for one simple reason: a fuel-cell automobile is nearly twice as efficient in using its fuel as an automobile powered by an internal-combustion engine is. In other words, the fuel-cell powered car requires only halfthe fuel energy that the internal-combustion powered car does to go the same distance.
The article states that replacing internal combustion engines that use oil as a source of power with hydrogen-based fuel cell engines is more beneficial. And provides three reasons for support, However, the professor explains that it agree with idea that oil-based engines are harmfull but it claims that hydrogen-based fuel cell engines are not the solution and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that hydrogen resources are unlimited and easily found in nature. The professor refutes this point by saying that hydrogen not easily extracted and many resources are not usable, she explains that hydrogen need a very cool condition and difficult artificial technique to convert it to pure liquid.
Second, the article posits that by using hydrogen this will reduce the pollution of the environment as the waste product is water. The professor says that the manufacturing for purification of hydrogen needs a huge amount of oil that's eventually lead to significant pollution risk.
Third, the reading says that hydrogen fuel is economically effective and people will spend a lower amount of money than oil, The professor opposes this point by explaining that the process for produce cells needs platinum as a component for it which is an expensive material.
In conclusion, although the reading and lecture are both about hydrogen-based fuel cell engine, the three main points made in reading are effectively challenged by the lecturer.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 230, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
... of hydrogen needs a huge amount of oil thats eventually lead to significant pollutio...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, third, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1264.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 232.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44827586207 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90276135726 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80552792186 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.543103448276 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 385.2 419.366225166 92% => 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: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.0465917729 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.0 110.228320801 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0 21.698381199 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.125 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.409151334404 0.272083759551 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.182167842498 0.0996497079465 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.131776183204 0.0662205650399 199% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211248759693 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.124506827965 0.0443174109184 281% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.7 13.3589403974 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 53.8541721854 62% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.0289183223 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.92 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.36 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.