TPO-22 - Integrated Writing Task Ethanol fuel, made from plants such as corn and sugar cane, has been advocated by some people as an alternative to gasoline in the United States. However, many critics argue that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasol

The reading passage discusses an interesting topic about the use of ethanol made from plants as a worse alternative of fuel than the gasoline, and provides three reasons for support. However, the lecturer casts doubts on the claim made by the article and opposes to each of the reasons of the reading passage.

First, the reading passage establishes that ethanol produced from corn or sugar cane is as worse as gasoline to the global warming. The lecturer rebuttes this argument by explaining that the carbon dioxide eliminated by the ethanol combustion would be absorbed by the plants that produce it. Therefore, it would be a compensation with no extra carbon dioxide realised to atmosphere.

Second, the lecturer suggests that the corn necessary to produce enough fuel should not compromise the use of corn for food. Moreover, the ethanol is created from the cellulose of the plant. Thus, any plant other than corn can be material good enough for the production of ethanol and the food provision would not be compromised.

Finally, the reading passage points out that the production of ethanol has similar price as gasoline thanks to a government subsidy. In other words, without the subsidy the ethanol would be very expensive. Challenging this point, the lecturer argues that in the future the price of ethanol should be competitive if its demand increase. In consequence, the production of the fuel would increase as well and the price would be reduced.

Votes
Average: 7.8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 98, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...ced from corn or sugar cane is as worse as gasoline to the global warming. The lec...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, thus, well, in other words

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1228.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09543568465 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65943706435 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.510373443983 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 385.2 419.366225166 92% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.7145694692 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.333333333 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0833333333 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.75 7.06452816374 110% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.452797495808 0.272083759551 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.171241109844 0.0996497079465 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0637696625525 0.0662205650399 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.275271630348 0.162205337803 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0604116533013 0.0443174109184 136% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.