Reading and lecture are both about Venus, and the possibility as humans to maintain a permanent presence on the planet. On the one hand, the writer brings arguments that gainsay this possibility. On the other hand, the speaker refutes the arguments made by the author, asserting that there are solutions for every problem presented in the article.
First, the atmospheric pressure is higher only on the surface of Venus, and affects only the objects that are at the ground level. The speaker affirms that fifty kilometers above the land, the pressure is identical with our planet's, and therefore engineers could build a floating station. In other words, there is no danger of being crushed or see another damage at that altitude. Thus, this argument contradicts the author's point of view.
Second, the lack of oxygen and water is not such a big issue. The author claims that there are no sources of water and oxygen, thereby these should be transported from Earth, which is worthless. However, the speaker confutes this arguing that oxygen and water can be obtained from chemical processes on Venus, because the atmosphere contains some substances which are favorable for water and oxygen production. So, this is a strong standpoint against passage.
Third, it is true that clouds reflect the sunlight, but actually this can be used to people's advantage. Humans are not going to land on the Venus, so there is no need for sunlight to reach the planet's surface. On the contrary, both the sunlight reflected by clouds and the one coming from space can be used for producing more energy on the floating station. In conclusion, the author and the lecturer seem to be in disagreement regarding this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 86, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'people'.
Suggestion: people
...light, but actually this can be used to peoples advantage. Humans are not going to land...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, third, thus, in conclusion, in other words, it is true, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1427.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00701754386 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5350142647 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554385964912 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 419.366225166 104% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.3177407844 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.1333333333 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.6 7.06452816374 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.3668100548 0.272083759551 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11154825194 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0756658152098 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.200686364275 0.162205337803 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516124189303 0.0443174109184 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.