The article and the lecture are both about ethanol, which is considered to be a replacement for gasoline. The writer says that its use does not bring any advantages to people or to the environment. On the other hand, the lecturer casts doubts on the arguments made by the writer, stating that those arguments are somewhat inaccurate when compared to reality.
First, the usage of ethanol can prevent global warming. The author says that ethanol releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and thus contributing to the effect of green house, as traditional gasoline does. However, the speaker says that ethanol is extracted from plants like corn which has the capacity to absorb large quantities of dioxide of carbon. Therefore, while corn can both provide ethanol and clean the atmosphere, the gasoline has not this property. This is a strong view that definitely contradicts the passage.
Second, producing ethanol does not decrease the availability of the plant' usage for other purposes. The writer is concerned that there will not be enough corn for feeding animals, if people exploit it for replacing gasoline. Anyway, the lecturer affirms that corn is not the only plant which can produce ethanol. Cellulose is a part of the plant which is not eaten, and it can be used for the production of ethanol. Furthermore, cellulose can be find in various plant, and consequently animals and other beneficiaries of corn, are not going to be affected by this. This is a plausible standpoint against author's point of view.
Third, the price of ethanol will decrease in the future. The writer says that at the moment there is not a big difference regarding the price between these two fuels. But, the lecturer points out that if production of plants that give ethanol would increase only three times, the price goes down with forty per cent, which is a very good deal. So, the final argument of the author is again contradicted.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, third, thus, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1609.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 323.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98142414861 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62106075 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532507739938 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 504.0 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.8300292243 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.3888888889 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9444444444 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.27777777778 7.06452816374 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390328671989 0.272083759551 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124869539318 0.0996497079465 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0770955050605 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225270271501 0.162205337803 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0615502204588 0.0443174109184 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.