According to the given set of reading the passage, it is the author's conviction that ethanol fuel, which is produced from corns and sugar canes, will not be a perfect substitution for gasoline due to several highlighted reasons. However, the lecturer casts doubt on this claim and refutes each of the author's specific point by giving some counter-arguments that are as follows:
First of all, the reading holds the view that using ethanol as an alternative fuel for gasoline will release a huge amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. As a result, it will have some unpleasant problems such as global warming. On the contrary, the lecture finds this reason unconvincing and rejects the author's claim by explaining that it is obvious that carbon dioxide will be released into the air, but the plants which are consumed for production of ethanol fuel will absorb carbon dioxide as an important nutrient for their growth.
Secondly, although the author posits that production of ethanol will diminish a number of plants and there will not enough food resource for animals, the lecturer states on the opposite side of this idea too. He says that ethanol fuel is formed by a specific part of the plant which is not eaten by animals. In other words, animals consume a special component of the plant.
As the last point to emphasize the reading claim, the author says that the price of ethanol will increase dramatically and will not be able to compete with gasoline price. Yet again, the lecture rejects this claim by saying that people will use a great amount of ethanol which it will lead to a higher amount of production. As a result, with increasing in production, the price of this fuel will be reduced. Furthermore, the results of studies have been showed that the price of ethanol will go down by 45 percent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 62, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n set of reading the passage, it is the authors conviction that ethanol fuel, which is ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, such as, as a result, first of all, in other words, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1513.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 312.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84935897436 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57519834807 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496794871795 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 460.8 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 85.6933799771 49.2860985944 174% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.545454545 110.228320801 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.3636363636 21.698381199 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.5454545455 7.06452816374 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390694628292 0.272083759551 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.161182790317 0.0996497079465 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.058108903204 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.248831321222 0.162205337803 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0504294829829 0.0443174109184 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.3589403974 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 53.8541721854 96% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 10.7273730684 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.