tpo9-w1
The reading and listening materials have a debate on the availability to replace the internal-combustion engine with the fuel-cell engine. The writer believes that the fuel-cell engine has three main advantages over the internal-combustion engines, which are all contradicted by the following lecture.
Firstly, the writer claims that the renewable hydrogen required by fuel-cell engines is more available and sustainable than the finite gasoline burned by the internal-combustion engines. However, the speaker casts doubt on it by saying that the hydrogen is not easily available since water cannot be directly used to create it. To begin with, people have to obtain water in pure liquid state which is a kind of highly artificial substance. Besides, the hydrogen can only be produced under extreme cold temperature, minus 253 Celsius. As a result, the easy access to hydrogen is not practical.
Secondly, the author argues that, compared with the internal-combustion engine which releases harmful carbon-dioxide, hydrogen-based fuel cells can better solve the problems of environmental pollution, while the lecture views this issue from an opposite angle. According to the professor, even though the fuel-cell engine will not discharge exhaust gas during the utilization, the process of creating hydrogen will cause much pollution. The purification process needs numerous energy required from burning coal or oil that gives rise to the pollution of factories.
Thirdly, the passage states that it is more economical to operate a fuel-cell engine than an internal-combustion engine. On the contrary, in accordance with the professor, this claim does not hold water. It is because the speaker did not consider the cost to manufacture the fuel-cell engine which is made of platinum. Without platinum, the engine is not able to produce chemical reaction and power the automobile. What’s more, people’s attempt to replace platinum with cheap elements is not successful.
To sum up, the author’s statements are totally refuted by the professor. Accordingly, whether the fuel-cell engine is better than the internal-combustion engine is still under heated debate.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, besides, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, while, kind of, as a result, on the contrary, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1858.0 1373.03311258 135% => OK
No of words: 328.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66463414634 5.08290768461 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.36933696569 2.5805825403 131% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.582317073171 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 585.0 419.366225166 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.1966364411 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.294117647 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2941176471 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.76470588235 7.06452816374 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less 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: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 53.8541721854 65% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.55 12.2367328918 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.44 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 63.6247240618 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.