The passage and lecture discuss burning coal by product which is called coal ash that has many harmful chemical material and how the government propose to create a new strict regulation for handling and storing. The author claims that new regulations are unnecessary and might have a negative effect. The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in lecture. She mentions, it should create a much stricter rules for regulation and recycling coal ash.
To begin with, the author states, regulation s of the environment already exists, This point contradicts by author, She mentions, the regulations which was exists only on new pond and landfill, but do not involve the old ones, which have leakage in the line and led to spread of coal ash to the soil, therefore the new regulation should involve old and new pond and landfill.
Second, the writer argues, creating very strict rules for storing of coal ash will discourage the recycle of it into other products. This argument challenged by professor, she claims, many materials have strict storing rules like mercury, but still used in high amount and recycle to other products without any concern.
Finally, the author says, strict new regulation result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs. In the other hand, the lecturer points out, it is true when new regulations are created, the cost of storing and handling increase, since the cost of electricity will increase, but when we use mathematic analysis, the cost will elevate about 1% for each individual, this value in not a big deal with the benefit of getting a health environment.
The passage and lecture discuss burning coal by product which is called coal ash that has many harmful chemical material and how the government propose to create a new strict regulation for handling and storing. The author claims that new regulations are unnecessary and might have a negative effect. The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in lecture. She mentions, it should create a much stricter rules for regulation and recycling coal ash.
To begin with, the author states, regulation s of the environment already exists, This point contradicts by author, She mentions, the regulations which was exists only on new pond and landfill, but do not involve the old ones, which have leakage in the line and led to spread of coal ash to the soil, therefore the new regulation should involve old and new pond and landfill.
Second, the writer argues, creating very strict rules for storing of coal ash will discourage the recycle of it into other products. This argument challenged by professor, she claims, many materials have strict storing rules like mercury, but still used in high amount and recycle to other products without any concern.
Finally, the author says, strict new regulation result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs. In the other hand, the lecturer points out, it is true when new regulations are created, the cost of storing and handling increase, since the cost of electricity will increase, but when we use mathematic analysis, the cost will elevate about 1% for each individual, this value in not a big deal with the benefit of getting a health environment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-03-29 | talelaldabous | 76 | view |
- Now days the difficulty of life inforce people to perform a lot of tasks some of persons believe that doing many tasks in the same time will decrease the chance of successful other believe the opposite In my perceptive I concur with the statement that doi 60
- The education is essentiat thing in children life therefor kids should obtain a good education with the enormous development of technology like invention of smart phone and presence of internet and a lot of social media some believe that these devices wil 70
- The passage and lecture are disccusing sending people to an asteriod to be best colonization The writer believes that is a good colonization option he gave three resons The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in article Shw said these reasons which are giv 70
- The passage and lecture both discuss genetically modified trees The author claims tree benefits from tree that modified genetically The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in the article She states it is not obvious there is any benefits from this method o 60
- To days many people interested with traveling to and space discovery the government fund this journy since this travel take alonge time and need a lot of money the question whether government funding to these type of exploration consider waste of money or 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The passage and lecture discuss burning ...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to other products without any concern Finally the author says strict new regul...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, if, second, so, still, therefore, it is true, 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: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1306.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89138576779 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50831774294 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.513108614232 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 404.1 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.23620309051 12% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 13.0662251656 8% => 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: 267.0 21.2450331126 1257% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 49.2860985944 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1306.0 110.228320801 1185% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 267.0 21.698381199 1231% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 73.0 7.06452816374 1033% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 4.45695364238 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.604519687166 0.272083759551 222% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.604519687166 0.0996497079465 607% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.354823799731 0.162205337803 219% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.246438687878 0.0443174109184 556% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 135.1 13.3589403974 1011% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -191.07 53.8541721854 -355% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 5.55761589404 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 106.2 11.0289183223 963% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 12.56 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 20.13 8.42419426049 239% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 58.0 10.7273730684 541% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 108.8 10.498013245 1036% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.