Although both the reading and the listening passage are about whether ethanol is a good replacement for gasoline, their perspectives are different. The listening states that ethanol cannot replace gasoline, whereas the reading refutes this claim.
To begin with, as mentioned in the reading passage, using more ethanol fuel, which also releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, would not help solve global warming. However, the professor in the listening opposes such an argument, based on the assertion that using ethanol fuel would not add global warming. In other words, the production of ethanol, which requires growing corn, counteracts the released carbon dioxide. Plants used for the production would absorb carbon dioxide, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Another point the reading emphasizes is that the production of substantiate amount of ethanol would critically reduce the amounts of plants used for other works. On the contrary, the speaker points out that the process of producing ethanol would not reduce the amount of plants for other uses. That is because the process only require part of the plant that is not eaten by animals. Be based on that and the food source for animal would not suffer.
Finally, the professor challenges the idea indicated in the reading that ethanol fuel will never be able to compete with gasoline in terms of price, due to the fact that the price of gasoline and that of ethanol fuel are equal because the US government help ethanol producers in form of tax subsidies. The lecturer refutes this idea by stating that the support from the government would not be needed; and ethanol fuel will be able to compete with gasoline. When the number of ethanol fuel consumers is large enough, the producer would increase production, therefore decreasing price. Furthermore, a research shows that if the production of ethanol increases by three times, its costs would drop 40%.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hereas the reading refutes this claim. To begin with, as mentioned in the readi...
^^^
Line 7, column 599, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'research'.
Suggestion: research
...herefore decreasing price. Furthermore, a research shows that if the production of ethanol...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, whereas, in other words, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1634.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 312.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23717948718 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51147923387 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50641025641 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 500.4 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7220739035 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.714285714 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2857142857 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.92857142857 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.587969854267 0.272083759551 216% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.209666271088 0.0996497079465 210% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0774023739809 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.334583082602 0.162205337803 206% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0874283462042 0.0443174109184 197% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21 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.