New stricter rules on handling and storing coal ash
The article and the lecture are both whether to adopt stricter rules on the process of handling and storing coal ash. the author of the reading believes that these regulations would do more harm than support and provides three reasons. nevertheless, the lecturer refutes the statements made by the writer. She is of the opinion that stringent rules on this problem should be established.
First of all, the author suggest that there are already law provisions governing this process. This argument is challenged by the speaker. She says that the existing rules are not sufficient as they are only applied to new landfills and ponds while the ones also cause significant damages as well. Harmful chemicals in those sites penetrate into underground water and contaminate drinking water. According to lecturer, all disposal locations, both new and old, should be bound by law.
Second, the writer contends that the more legislations introduced would create consumers' fear for products made of recycled ash and consequently, hurt the sale. However, the lecturer rebuts this point by asserting that this does not necessarily mean that buyers would stop using products related to coal ash. She elaborates on by mentioning the case of Mercury, of which the handling and storing has long been fettered by strict rules. Despite that, Mercury is still successfully and safely recycled and people show few concern and are not afraid to purchase and utilize the products made of the chemical.
Finally, it is stated in the passage that introduction of new regulations would lead to growing cost for power corporations, which must, hence, raise the electricity price. The speaker, on the other hand, posits that the result is well worthy of the extra cost. The expense on implementing the new rules is about fifteen billion Dollars, which actually expands the average budget for electricity by one percent. She argues that this cost is worthwhile in exchange for a cleaner environment
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-01-06 | xiao | 80 | view |
| 2021-03-29 | talelaldabous | 76 | view |
| 2019-12-18 | mohammadkmi | 90 | view |
| 2019-12-18 | marysv | 90 | view |
| 2019-02-07 | julia0120 | 88 | view |
- Agnostids how they might have lived 83
- o you agree or disagree with the following statement? Movies and television have more negative effects than positive effects on the way young people behave. 90
- Burning mirror 63
- Ways to prevent birds' injuries because of glass window 76
- Venus conditions for human presence 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 119, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...ocess of handling and storing coal ash. the author of the reading believes that the...
^^^
Line 1, column 237, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Nevertheless
...han support and provides three reasons. nevertheless, the lecturer refutes the statements ma...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 517, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun concern seems to be countable; consider using: 'few concerns'.
Suggestion: few concerns
...lly and safely recycled and people show few concern and are not afraid to purchase and util...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, still, well, while, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1663.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 320.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.196875 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67482293514 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 145.348785872 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 504.0 419.366225166 120% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.9399452605 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.8235294118 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8235294118 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.70588235294 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.256792948851 0.272083759551 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0670652232221 0.0996497079465 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116985383972 0.0662205650399 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139237209409 0.162205337803 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0822037583067 0.0443174109184 185% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.