The author in the reading part holds that new regulations for handling and storing coal ash are not necessarily beneficial, while the lecturer in the lecture expresses an opposite opinion.
To begin with, the author claims that there already exist regulations on the disposal of coal ash, which require companies to use liners in new ponds and landfills. However, the lecturer refutes that existing regulations prohibit companies from using liners in old ponds or landfills, thus causing danger. Specifically, harmful coal ash components would leak into groundwater, contaminating drinking water. Therefore, it is significant that the government impose strict regulations on new and old ponds and landfills.
Moreover, the author believes that strict rules for recycling coal ash may discourage customers from buying recycled products. On the contrary, the lecturer rebuts with regards to the recycling of similar dangerous material named mercury. Despite the rules on mercury for over 50 years, there are few concerns about its danger. Hence, stricter rules about recycling coal ash may not discourage customers from buying recycled products.
Finally, the author puts forward that regulations will result in a rise in the cost of power companies, leading to a higher electricity bill for customers. Instead, the lecturer retorts that it is well worth the costs of power companies because while the costs of companies rise by 15 billion dollars, customers only rise by one percent of electricity bills on average. In a word, it is significant for the government to impose stricter regulations on power companies concerning economic reasons.
- Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the 80
- TPO 44 Integrated Writing 80
- Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the 80
- Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the 80
- It is better to work for business owned by someone you do not know than work for a business owned by your family 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, thus, well, while, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1391.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 254.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47637795276 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84295861117 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.53937007874 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 425.7 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.2777671431 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.916666667 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1666666667 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.41666666667 7.06452816374 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.128005419387 0.272083759551 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0533748797358 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0432075886303 0.0662205650399 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0726524351038 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0280738300438 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.