TPO36 Hail pieces of ice that form and fall from clouds instead of snow or rain has always been a problem for farmers in some areas of the United States Hail pellets can fall with great force and destroy crops in the field Over the last few decades a meth

Essay topics:


Hail—pieces of ice that form and fall from clouds instead of snow or rain—has always been a problem for farmers in some areas of the United States. Hail pellets can fall with great force and destroy crops in the field. Over the last few decades, a method of reducing hail, called "cloud seeding," has been tried. In cloud seeding, the chemical silver iodide is sprayed on storm clouds from an airplane. This makes the clouds produce harmless rain or snow instead of hail. Several pieces of evidence suggest that cloud seeding has been effective in protecting crops from hail.

Laboratory experiments

Experiments in the laboratory support the idea that cloud seeding is effective. Hail usually forms water vapor that is close to the freezing point However, when experimenters added silver iodide to cold water vapor in the laboratory, they often observed light snow forming instead of hail pellets.

Evidence from Asia

There is evidence about the effectiveness of cloud seeding from several countries around the world. In some Asian countries, for example, cloud seeding has been successfully used to control precipitation in urban areas. These positive results suggest that cloud seeding should also be effective in protecting fields and farms in the United States.

Local studies

A few local studies also support the value of cloud seeding. One study conducted in a farming region in the central United States, for example, directly monitored crop damage due to hail. The study found that in an area where cloud seeding was used there was reduced hail damage compared to previous years.

The reading provides three possible evidence for the effectiveness of cloud seeding. However, the speaker cast serious doubt on the explanations.

Firstly, the speaker differs with the argument that laboratory result help prove the effectiveness in preventing the transformation to hail. She states that silver iodide would not only preventing hail from freezing, but also snow and rain, which would put cloud seeding under the risk of triggering droughts.

Secondly, she suggests that the evidence from Asia is not convincing as it was only successfully applied under the urban circumstance with air pollution. The particles in the pollution would contribute to the interaction with clouds and chemicals, creating a favorable condition. Hence, the result may not be replicated in the farming region.

Lastly, the local study flawed as the speaker suggest the reduced damage of hail is not a consequence of cloud seeding because of the fact that similar trends were displayed in the neighbor areas as well instead of just the region where study conducted. Climate variation may account for the changes in the area.

In conclusion, the speaker provides strong evidence to disprove the three possible support for the benefits of cloud seeding with regard to hail prevention.

Average: 9.3 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 187, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'would' requires base form of the verb: 'prevent'
Suggestion: prevent
...tates that silver iodide would not only preventing hail from freezing, but also snow and r...
Line 13, column 120, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_THE_FACT_THAT[1]
Message: This phrase is redundant. Use simply 'because'.
Suggestion: because
...l is not a consequence of cloud seeding because of the fact that similar trends were displayed in the ne...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, well, in conclusion, with regard to

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 22.412803532 31% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1093.0 1373.03311258 80% => OK
No of words: 200.0 270.72406181 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.465 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76060309309 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82948316835 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 118.0 145.348785872 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.59 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 317.7 419.366225166 76% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.7868182504 49.2860985944 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.3 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7 7.06452816374 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.146058370269 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0534804069136 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.030951655646 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0784098652122 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0215413932732 0.0443174109184 49% => 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: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?


Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.