the stricter regulation for handling and storing coal ash
The material discusses the new stricter rules that the US should adopt for handling and storing coal ash. While the reading looks at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges certain points outlined in the reading passage.
first, the author claims that these standers are already existed. On the other hand, the professor opposes that and says these rules should be updated because the old rule of using liner special material is not sufficient. the lecturer adds that the current regulation use this liner for only new landfills or new ponds , but do not use it in the old disposal sites. The listening mentions that casues leaking of harmful chemical material into ground water and contaminats the drinking water. As a result, these rules should be active in both old and new disposal sites.
Second, the reading posits that these stricter rules could discourage consumers from using coal ash recycle material. On the contrary, the lecturer contradicts this and points that these rules will never affect consuming recyle materials because other old danger materials ,such as murcuery use this approach and has continued to recycle for fifty years, and consumers do not have any concers, even though the stricter handle rules.
Third, the author states that these stricter regulations will increase the cost of the power. In contrast, the professor challenges this and says that it is true the cost of power will increase; however, the result is wellworthy. The lecturer explains that the cost of power companies will be fifteen billion dollar, but analyzes that mathematically reveal that houses' electric bill will just increase one percent, which is not a big price to pay for having a clean environment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-23 | Christine hanna | 73 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: First
...ints outlined in the reading passage. first, the author claims that these standers ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 224, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...ner special material is not sufficient. the lecturer adds that the current regulati...
^^^
Line 3, column 320, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...iner for only new landfills or new ponds , but do not use it in the old disposal s...
^^
Line 3, column 538, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... result, these rules should be active in both old and new disposal sites. Secon...
^^
Line 5, column 273, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...rials because other old danger materials ,such as murcuery use this approach and h...
^^
Line 7, column 480, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to pay for having a clean environment.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, second, so, third, well, while, in contrast, such as, as a result, it is true, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 15.1003584229 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 43.0788530466 58% => OK
Preposition: 17.0 52.1666666667 33% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 2.0 8.0752688172 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1448.0 1977.66487455 73% => OK
No of words: 281.0 407.700716846 69% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15302491103 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.48103885553 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48257596892 2.67179642975 93% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 212.727598566 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.548042704626 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 433.8 618.680645161 70% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.59856630824 10% => OK
Article: 12.0 3.08781362007 389% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.6003584229 58% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.2477105843 48.9658058833 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.666666667 100.406767564 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4166666667 20.6045352989 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.0 5.45110844103 220% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.5376344086 108% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.217011760717 0.236089414692 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0846392046384 0.076458572812 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.132528513567 0.0737576698707 180% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143928287601 0.150856017488 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0976678653307 0.0645574589148 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 11.7677419355 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 58.1214874552 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.01818996416 112% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 86.8835125448 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.