TPO41
The reading passage deals with the issue of whether the government should create much stricter regulations to solve the coal ash problem. The professor's talk focuses on the same issue. However, she believes that the government should definitely create new strict regulations to deal with coal ash, which is exactly the opposite of what the reading states. And in the lecture, the professor makes three specific points to back up her point of view.
In the first place, even though the reading passage suggests that environmental regulation have already exist so that we don't need new regulations, the professor claims in the lecture that those regulations now is not sufficient. This is because companies are building new landfills or ponds to meet the regulations but leave the old ones unchanged, which means we have to come up with some new regulations to require companies to deal with coal ash. Apparently, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In the second place, contrary to the statement in the reading that if create strict regulations, people will be discouraged to recycle coal ash, and the professor argues that people will not stop using the recycle process. Then she supports this point with the fact that something similar happened previously and recycle have lasted for about 50 years. In other words, new rules won't do harm to the recycling.
Further, the professor states that the result will well worth the cost since the author of the reading passage claims that the cost will increase significantly. The professor shows that this claims is very weak by pointing out that the research of the amount of increase showed that 15 billion dollars is just about one percent of the electricity price, -that is to say, the cost of dealing with coal ash for power companies is worthwhile.
To sum up, the professor discovers the flaws in the reading passage and successfully reveals that the main argument in the reading is incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 105, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'existed'.
Suggestion: existed
...t environmental regulation have already exist so that we dont need new regulations, t...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 122, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...egulation have already exist so that we dont need new regulations, the professor cla...
^^^^
Line 3, column 468, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
... to deal with coal ash. Apparently, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, however, if, second, so, then, well, while, in other words, to sum up, in the first place, in the second place, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1660.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 328.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06097560976 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63764447039 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521341463415 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 486.0 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.2324786114 49.2860985944 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.692307692 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2307692308 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.5384615385 7.06452816374 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.344269623912 0.272083759551 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1159934143 0.0996497079465 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0979255393714 0.0662205650399 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181933261479 0.162205337803 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0902163275815 0.0443174109184 204% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.