use of airships
The passage presents some possible support for the hypothesis that airships could once again gain popularity and be widely used today. The lecturer, however, refutes all the arguments that are present in the article, and he claims there are drawbacks to each one of them. His further demonstrations are as follows.
Firstly, while it is true that airships use less fuel than airplanes and helicopters, due to their fuel expenditure only in horizontal movement, the matter of lighter-than-air gas utilized in these airships presents another challenge. The most efficient lighter-than-air gases are Hydrogen and Helium. Whereas Hydrogen is highly flammable and catches fire quickly, Helium is safer, yet very expensive and hard to obtain. Hence, a conclusive way of attaining a safe and simultaneously cost-effective airship has not been achieved yet.
Secondly, although airships do not need a long runway to take off, their application to transfer heavy loads cannot be perceived as practical. For instance, if an airship is used to move tree trunks in the forest, it has to come down slowly, stay steady for the trunks to be loaded, and then, take off slowly as well. However, airships are considerably vulnerable to wind, and thus, they are difficult to control and keep stable. A rather strong blow of wind can cause the airship to collide with the trees in the forest and get seriously damaged.
Finally, airships are not ready to replace satellites yet. To perform the job of a satellite, an airship would have to be sent to high altitudes. In such high altitudes, airships require a lot more fuel to resist the force of the wind and provide high-quality information similar to what the satellites present. Consequently, the airships would have to descend frequently to refuel, making this strategy even more expensive than satellites.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-25 | Seyed Armin Mirhosseini | 90 | view |
- educating children today is harder because of technology 86
- is taking a lot of time making an important decision a good guality or a bad one 81
- is sending humans to Mars possible 3
- TPO 18 integrated agree or not students are more influenced by their teachers than by their friends 73
- there are doubts whether some paintings attributed to him were actually painted by him.first there is something inconsistent about the way the woman in the portrait is dressed.second, this in this painting the elements of light and shadow do not fit toget 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, whereas, while, as to, for instance, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 3.0 12.0772626932 25% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1553.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19397993311 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94061916649 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625418060201 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 481.5 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.9465890371 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.533333333 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9333333333 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.73333333333 7.06452816374 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.385388547727 0.272083759551 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111977547103 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0843563608841 0.0662205650399 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215282827359 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0377546072636 0.0443174109184 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.