Hail-pellets.
The reading and the lecture are both about the evidence of the cloud seeding which has been effective in protecting crops from hail. As opposed to, the lecturer who counters-argues that viewpoint, trying to prove that these three evidence do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions the laboratory experiments which support the idea of the effectiveness of cloud seeding. Moreover, when experiment s added silver iodide they saw only a light snow instead of hail pellets. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that by doing this we can cause other problems that prevent the growth of crops such as running a risk of causing a drought. As a result, the corps would not grow.
The second argument the author gives is that the evidence from Asia are a sign that tell us that the cloud seeding could work everywhere. Consequently, the positive results that are seen in Asia could protect fields and farms in the US. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that in Asia the cloud seeding has been successful in urban areas where the level of pollution is high. Furthermore, the pollution favors the conditions of effective cloud seeding. Actually, in the unpolluted areas of the US farming that would not work.
Lastly, on one hand the passage points out that the local studies are also a good support to value the cloud seeding. The study have shown that in a farming region has been seen a reduction of hail damage compare to previous years. So, that would be the same for all local regions. Nevertheless, the professor declares that if this occur everywhere it means that it is a natural variation and has nothing to do with the artificial cloud seeding.
In conclusion, although, the text suggests three evidence in supporting of the cloud seeding, the lecturer believes that none of these are persuasive.
- should students wear uniform at school 76
- TPO 39 - Integrated Writing Task 3
- TPO-30 76
- The author states the methods of protecting the forest trees oaks from the spread of dangerous P. ramorum fungus. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter - argues that viewpoint trying to prove these three methods do not seem convincing.First and foremost 80
- TPO 26 integrated writing task 85
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, in conclusion, such as, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 21.0 12.0772626932 174% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1572.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99047619048 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65534254689 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552380952381 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => 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: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.442812634 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.25 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6875 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.9375 7.06452816374 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.100867051273 0.272083759551 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0317388855263 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0741172464129 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0527313673874 0.162205337803 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.05105977245 0.0443174109184 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.