The reading passage and the lecture are both about the efficiency of ethanol fuel. More specifically, the writer discusses it is not an appropriate choice toward gasoline. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees. He believes that it possesses some advantages which could not be omitted and provides some evidence to refute all mentioned disagreements in the reading.
First of all, the author begins by stating that the mass productions of ethanol fuel will give rise to global warming. However, the lecturer declares that although carbon dioxide released by burning ethanol, through planting in order to exploit more ethanol fuel, it will ultimately be compensated. He goes on to say that the trees could absorb this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the author claims that for covering the fuel requirement in the United States, the producers have to cut a significant number of trees, which are the animal's food. Again, the lecturer believes that there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that ethanol is fabricated from cellulose, which is a part of plants do not be eaten by animals.
Lastly, the article mentioned that manufacturing ethanol fuel would be costly for the government, even though people are paying as expensive as the gasoline for this fuel. In turn, the professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this is accurate. He states that its high-cost is because of the limit production. He asserts that if people start purchasing more ethanol fuel, it causes to manufactured increasingly and as a result, the price will enjoy a sharp drop.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 164, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...nificant number of trees, which are the animals food. Again, the lecturer believes that...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 234, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...er believes that there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that ethano...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, so, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1348.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 261.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16475095785 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79867683118 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574712643678 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.307220023 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.2857142857 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6428571429 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.384761783294 0.272083759551 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111565266434 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0991122546805 0.0662205650399 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.22107344578 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0793023880014 0.0443174109184 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.