TPO 22, Integrated
The passage states that ethanol is not a good alternative for gasoline in the united states and provides three reasons of support. On the other hand the lecturer claims that the reasons are not sensible and ethanol could be a valuable replacement for gasoline and refutes all the three explanations one by one.
First, the article explains that both of gasoline and ethanol releases carbon dioxide into atmosphere which is a greenhouse gas and leads to global warming. The professor does not confirm this reason and says that it is wright that ethanol produces carbon dioxide but the plants which utilizes for producing ethanol absorb carbon dioxide as a nutrition for growing up.
Second, the passage claims that source of food for animals will dwindled by usage of corn and sugar cane for ethanol production but the lecturer challenges this reason by saying that the parts of plants which is used as forages for animals doesn't have any relationship with the part which ethanol is produced from.
Third, the article states that the price of ethanol will increase by elimination of tax subsides so the price of ethanol will be more than gasoline. The professor refutes this explanation by providing a convincing reason. He avers by increasing the production of ethanol, the prices will be reduced predictably and in addition the cost of ethanol production will decrease about 40 percent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 268, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...that ethanol produces carbon dioxide but the plants which utilizes for producing ...
^^
Line 5, column 65, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'dwindle'
Suggestion: dwindle
...ms that source of food for animals will dwindled by usage of corn and sugar cane for eth...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 241, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ts which is used as forages for animals doesnt have any relationship with the part whi...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, second, so, third, as for, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1167.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 230.0 270.72406181 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07391304348 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.89432290496 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5681081722 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 145.348785872 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.530434782609 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 367.2 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => 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: 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: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 65.6063068615 49.2860985944 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.875 110.228320801 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.75 21.698381199 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.625 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 4.45695364238 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.493686118562 0.272083759551 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.221562202919 0.0996497079465 222% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0918432152612 0.0662205650399 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.298363022306 0.162205337803 184% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00592796899927 0.0443174109184 13% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 13.3589403974 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.72 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.