using ethanol instead of gasoline
The reading and the listening are about using ethanol instead of gasoline. While the author calims that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline, the professor refutes all the claims made my the listening and states that ethanol can be a good alternative to gasoline.
First, the speaker contends that ethanol could not solve the problem of global warming. On the contrary, the lecturer opposes this and mentions that ethanol could not add to global warming. The professor explaines that ethanol is made from plants, such as corns; so people should grow plant in order to produce ethanol. The lecturer points out that growing plants could absord carbon dioxide from the air and reduce global warming.
Second, the reading states that using ethanol could reduce the amount of plants available as animals' nutrients. On the other hand, the listening contradicts this and says that cellulose is the main part of the plant that should be used to produce ethanol. The professor mentions that cellulose finds only on the cell wall, which is in the part of plants that do not be eaten by animals. As a result, the lecturer adds that using plants to produce ethanol will not diminsh the amount of food for animals.
Third, the writer claims that ethanol could not compete with gasoline in the term of price. Conversely, the lecturer refutes this and posits that ethanol could compete with gasoline in the future. The professor exaplains that if people start to buy ethanol, its production will increase, which could drop its price. The speaker mentions that there is a statistic done found that if the production of ethanol is three time greater than today, the cost of ethanol production will drop by forty percent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 502, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... production will drop by forty percent.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, first, if, second, so, third, while, such as, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1431.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95155709343 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33461210235 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.449826989619 0.540411800872 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 431.1 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.23620309051 182% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.5030458561 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.214285714 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6428571429 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.352300444428 0.272083759551 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135133886635 0.0996497079465 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.096226766171 0.0662205650399 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.197188717396 0.162205337803 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0484464265887 0.0443174109184 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.36 8.42419426049 87% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.