The reading passage and the lecture are both about the waste product of burning coal in power plants which called coal ash. More specifically, the writer discusses the advocate of the idea that they believe the regulations about the handling these harmful chemicals are already useful. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees. She believes that the United States government should exert the new rules in order to prevent negative results.
First of all, the author begins by stating that current policies are already beneficial as long as there are some requirements. For instance, the usages of liner-special material that inhibit entering the coal ash components into the soil and surrounding environment. The lecturer, however, disagrees. He declares that the mentioned regulation is not adequate, and it will leave significant damage, whereas the chemicals dangerous components will protrude into the groundwater, which is the essential source of the drinking water in the country.
Furthermore, the author claims that nowadays, there are some products which are manufactured from the recycling of coal ash. The people will discourage to utilize these productions, provided the government create some radical rules for them. Again, the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that the new policies do not necessarily lead to ignoring people for purchasing these commodities. He examples a product which is made of the recycled coal ash, and people use it safely in society.
Lastly, the article mentions that the unusual regulations for restricting the coal ash will give rise to a remarkable increase in the expenses of power companies. In turn, the professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this is accurate. She states that although the prices will enjoy a slight increase, the consequences are more valuable. She says that the concern regarding the cost of electricity is not crucial, because this growth is just one percent, and it is negligible in compares with having a healthy environment.
Essay topics
Votes
Essay reference notes: This topic is refereed from another essay topic, developed by user: apply2017
Essay Categories
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 294, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ecturer believes there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that the ne...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, regarding, so, whereas, for instance, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1736.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 324.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35802469136 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83423423639 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543209876543 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 547.2 419.366225166 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0260858465 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.117647059 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0588235294 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35294117647 7.06452816374 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.410013811373 0.272083759551 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111458619334 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109284466401 0.0662205650399 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.232798245504 0.162205337803 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.043896662599 0.0443174109184 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.31 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 63.6247240618 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.