The passage and lecture both discuss three assumptions around a replacement for gasoline, which is dubbed ethanol. The reading claims that ethanol cannot be a good candidate and demonstrates three counterarguments. In contrast, the lecturer explains that the justifications of the text are not convincing and refutes each author's reason.
Firstly, the article posits that ethanol releases carbon dioxide into the air, so it has no any extra benefit for environment compared to the gasoline. The professor denies this and mentions that ethanol will not add the global warming. It is true that ethanol releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but the process of growing the plants, which are used to produce ethanol, counteracts the release of the carbon dioxide. In fact, plants absorb carbon dioxide as nutritious and remove it from the atmosphere.
Secondly, the passage indicates that using of the plants to produce ethanol can reduce foods for other animals. However, the speaker says that utilizing ethanol will not reduce animals’ food. According to the professor, ethanol producers can employ the cellulose part of the plant which is not eaten by animals. Therefore, ethanol process cannot harm source of foods.
Thirdly, the article points out that ethanol price would not be able to compete with gasoline price. The lecturer opposes this and reminds that in the future ethanol will be capable to compete with gasoline in the term of price. The price of the ethanol will be decreased when people purchase more ethanol, and as consequence producers increase ethanol production. Studies show that when the production of the ethanol rises three times, the cost will be reduced by 40%.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 26 in 30
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 12
No. of Words: 271 250
No. of Characters: 1388 1200
No. of Different Words: 137 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.057 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.122 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.542 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 41 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 25 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.067 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.409 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.533 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.377 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.589 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 90, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
... carbon dioxide into the air, so it has no any extra benefit for environment compa...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, in contrast, in fact, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1438.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30627306273 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67655650775 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538745387454 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 450.0 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.7982683496 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8666666667 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0666666667 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.451203427957 0.272083759551 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.162981622726 0.0996497079465 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0797353036133 0.0662205650399 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.268476513824 0.162205337803 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0766971503077 0.0443174109184 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.