Car manufacturers and governments have been eagerly seeking a replacement for the automobile's main source of power, the internal-combustion engine. By far the most promising alternative source of energy for cars is the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine, which uses hydrogen to create electricity that, in turn, powers the car. Fuel-cell engines have several advantages over internal-combustion engines and will probably soon replace them.
One of the main problems with the internal-combustion engine is that it relies on petroleum, either in the form of gasoline or diesel fuel. Petroleum is a finite resource; someday, we will run out of oil. The hydrogen needed for fuel-cell engines cannot easily be depleted. Hydrogen can be derived from various plentiful sources, including natural gas and even water. The fact that fuel-cell engines utilize easily available, renewable resources makes them particularly attractive.
Second, hydrogen-based fuel cells are attractive because they will solve many of the world's pollution problems. An unavoidable by-product of burning oil is carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide harms the environment. On the other hand, the only byproduct of fuel-cell engines is water.
Third, fuel-cell engines will soon be economically competitive because people will spend less money to operate a fuel-cell engine than they will to operate an internal-combustion engine. This is true for one simple reason: a fuel-cell automobile is nearly twice as efficient in using its fuel as an automobile powered by an internal-combustion engine is. In other words, the fuel-cell powered car requires only half the fuel energy that the internal-combustion powered car does to go the same distance.
Both the article and lecture are about the Hydrogen cell-fuel and its potentials to substitute petroleum as the main source of energy in cars. While the reading material enumerates three advantages of the Hydrogen fuel-cell as a wonderful alternative for oil, the professor, however, does not believe so and refutes all the author’s reasons.
First, the article mentions that hydrogen is an endless resources while petroleum is not. It asserts that hydrogen is available in natural gas and water molecules. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes this notion by explaining that hydrogen is not directly usable, and it shouold be purified and store in liquid form. She points out that production and storing liquid hydrogen is difficult. To liquidified hydrogen, it must be cold till minus 250 celcius degree, which it is so hard to access. Then, hydrogen is not available as the author mentiones.
Second, the reading material posits that hydrogen can solve the main problem of pollution of fossil fuels. Since it does not produce carbon dioxide by-product. The lecturer accepts that hydrogen will not make carbon dioxeide while it burns, but production process of hydrogen in factories uses a lot of energy which drived from oil or coal. Consequently, it produce a lot of carbon dioxide and other pollutant. She avers that hydrogen cannot solve the pollution problem.
Third, the author points out that hydrogen will be soon economically available for users. When people pay less for hydrogen which has twice more efficency rather than gasoline, they will use fuel-cell car more. Conversely, the professor repudiates this idea by saying that manufacturing the fuel-cell is so expenxive. Based on her assertion, fuel-cell technology needs platinum, a very rare and expensive element. She adds that attempts to find a suitable and cheeper alternative for platinum has been unsuccessful. Then it sould not be a good solution.
- The popular 5 day workweek has long been a staple in U S business With employees working 8 hours a day for a total of 40 hours a week it has been seen as a model of efficiency However some companies and government agencies have begun converting to a 10 ho 78
- Populations of the yellow cedar a species of tree that is common in northwestern North America have been steadily declining for more than a century now since about 1880 Scientists have advanced several hypotheses explain this decline One hypothesis is tha 73
- Do you agree or disagree It is easier for parents to raise children than it was 50 years ago 80
- Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the 80
- TPO26(independent)It is better for children to choose jobs that are similar to their parents jobs than to choose jobs that are very different from their parents jobs. 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 108, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...n problem of pollution of fossil fuels. Since it does not produce carbon dioxide by-p...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 359, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'produces'?
Suggestion: produces
...ived from oil or coal. Consequently, it produce a lot of carbon dioxide and other pollu...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, conversely, first, however, if, second, so, then, third, while, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1620.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 309.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2427184466 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7645421521 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569579288026 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.554706521 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.2631578947 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2631578947 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73684210526 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
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: 0.22268183627 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0609199931971 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0503009142362 0.0662205650399 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1373600287 0.162205337803 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.071000532248 0.0443174109184 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.