New rules for disposal of coal ash
Both the reading and the lecture are about the rules and regulations for handling and disposal of harmful waste products of burning coal. The article states that there is no need for new regulations to dispose of coal ash and provides three reasons to endorse its ideas. However, the professor excerpts that definitely there should be new and stricter rules and gainsays each of the arguments mentioned in the reading.
First and foremost, the passage begins by asserting that representatives of power companies claim that rules already available are best. For instance, the use of liner in landfills and ponds to prevent coal ash from environmental contamination. On the other hand, the professor explains the existing regulations are not sufficient. Liners are essential for new sites of ash disposal, not for old sites because they are damaged to such an extent that liners would not help. For instance, once at an old site, the disposed chemical got leaked and contaminated the drinking water. Therefore, we need new laws to safely dispose of harmful substances.
Next, the professor further delves into the details by pointing out that stricter rules will not discourage consumers to recycle waste products. She gave an example of mercury to illustrate this. Mercury, a hazardous chemical, in spite of having strict storage and handling procedure, is recycled safely by consumers. Thus it is unlikely that recycling will get affected due to new rules. These claims refute the writer's implication of concerns about recycling coal ash. The stricter rules towards dangerous chemical handling will threaten buyers to buy recycled items.
Ultimately, the article wraps its argument by declaring that as a result of new regulations, the cost of disposal will increase for companies which will give rise to an increase in electricity rates for people. In contrast, the professor rebuts this reason by showing the inaccuracy of the author that although the cost of disposal will increase, the results are a cleaner environment. The well worthy extra cost of $15 Million will only increase 1% in electricity bill. Hence, the new rules are worth applying.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-02-18 | Safa Arshad | 78 | view |
| 2019-08-28 | farshad_hom | 72 | view |
- Glass is a favored building material for modern architecture yet it is also very dangerous for wild birds Because they often cannot distinguish between glass and open air millions of birds are harmed every year when they try to fly through glass windows T 83
- Cloud seeding 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Teacher were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they were nowadays Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Movies and television have more negative effects than positive effects on the way young people behave Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 72
- REduction salt level in Salton lake 68
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 318, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...edure, is recycled safely by consumers. Thus it is unlikely that recycling will get ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 413, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...e to new rules. These claims refute the writers implication of concerns about recycling...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, so, therefore, thus, well, for instance, in contrast, as a result, in spite of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1805.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 347.0 270.72406181 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20172910663 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75733026991 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559077809798 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 562.5 419.366225166 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.23620309051 182% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.1232198552 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.0 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2631578947 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.57894736842 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.464590541768 0.272083759551 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123969668217 0.0996497079465 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10227495848 0.0662205650399 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.288309814845 0.162205337803 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.13514023695 0.0443174109184 305% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 63.6247240618 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.