TPO.9-Integrated
The article states that hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines are the best replacement for internal-combustion engines, and provides three reasons for support. However, the professor explains that the hydrogen-based engines are not a good solution to the problems of internal-combustion and refutes each of the author's solution.
First, the reading claims that petroleum is a finite resource but hydrogen is plentiful and can be extracted from different sources. The professor refutes this point by saying that hydrogen is not easily available. It is not directly useable. In fact, it should be in pure and liquid form to become useful in fuel-cell engines. He states that technology allows us to produce and store such hydrogen is difficult. This hydrogen should be very cold, about -253 degrees of Celsius.
Second, the article expressed that hydrogen-based engines will solve the pollution problem. However, the professor does not agree with this claim. According to the professor, the process needed for generating such hydrogen, burning a lot of coal and oil. This is resulting to create pollution. Therefore, if the cares do not create pollution themselves, the factories that create such hydrogen create a lot of pollution to the environment.
Third, the reading says that the cost of hydrogen is fewer than petroleum. The professor this point by explaining that the cost of manufacture the fuel-cell engine is much higher. He states that a specific component using in these engines is very rare.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-12 | MahmoudRaeisi | 3 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 307, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rnal-combustion and refutes each of the authors solution. First, the reading claims ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, third, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1272.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 236.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38983050847 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91947592106 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08143797321 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.533898305085 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 386.1 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.2762650974 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.5 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.75 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.875 7.06452816374 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.0 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: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 11.0289183223 80% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.39 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.