TPO36
In the reading passage, the writer contends that a method of reducing hail named"cloud seeding" has been effective in protecting crops from hail; however, in the lecture the professor completely refutes all the reading points by providing several reasons and examples.
First of all, the writer claims that laboratory experiments support the notion that this technique is effective; on the other hand, the professor takes issue with this statement and states that in real condition, this method can prevent any participation. Consequently, after applying this method, crops will be failed by dint of lack of water.
Moreover, the writer also indicates that this method has been effective for controlling participation in Asia; on the contrary, the lecture material again rejects this notion by stating that cloud seeding has been uses in cities of the Asia which pollution can play rule in the process; in contrast, inasmuch as there is no pollution in rural area of the United States, the result would be fundamentally different.
In addition, the writer also manifests that a few local studies revealed that in an area where cloud seeding was used, hail damage had less negative consequences in compared with the previous years; in contrast, the professor again is oppose this idea and asserts that a reduce in damage had nothing to do with cloud seeding since it has happened on account of other natural elements.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 236, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'opposed'.
Suggestion: opposed
...rs; in contrast, the professor again is oppose this idea and asserts that a reduce in ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 270, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...in is oppose this idea and asserts that a reduce in damage had nothing to do with cloud ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, however, if, moreover, so, in addition, in contrast, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1206.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 230.0 270.72406181 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24347826087 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.89432290496 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81114444333 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.586956521739 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 369.9 419.366225166 88% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 5.0 13.0662251656 38% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 46.0 21.2450331126 217% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 115.058941417 49.2860985944 233% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 241.2 110.228320801 219% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 46.0 21.698381199 212% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 25.6 7.06452816374 362% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 26.3 13.3589403974 197% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.79 53.8541721854 46% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 21.2 11.0289183223 192% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.0 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.93 8.42419426049 130% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 20.4 10.498013245 194% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.