TPO 41
Both of the provided materials are discussing a specific waste product, namely ash coal. The reading avers an act of environmentalists about passing stricter rules to prevent ash coal's damage to the environment. Then the author mentions three reasons to demonstrate how these laws are unnecessary and somewhat bothersome. Nevertheless, the lecturer believes otherwise and refutes each of the passage's points.
First, the reading suggests that the potential environmental drawbacks of ash coals are already handled. However, the professor states that the regulations regarding the prevention of ash coal leakage are only applied to the newly constructed ponds and landfills. Moreover, older sites are still endangering water and soil reservoirs. She mentions a recent leakage of ash coal from an old unregulated site that contaminated the nearby underground water. Thus, she believes all the new and old ponds have to follow more stringent regulations.
Second, the reading avers about the concerns regarding customers of these leftovers. The professor, on the other hand, opposes these concerns by stating that attributing a product as a harmfull product has nothing to do with its market among in-demand companies. For example, Mercury is a hazardous material which was entitled to lots of regulations in industries. However, it did not lose its customers since they were not afraid of an useful material in their business, which happens to be a poisonous one.
Third, the reading states that the addition of expenses on this matter is not acceptable. The professor contends by saying that preserving the environments and saving valuable resources is a well-worthy result of this added cost. Also, she adds that the overall expense would add up to fifty billion dollars, which increases each household's energy consumption by one percent. This is a rather small price for a greater good.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 435, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...customers since they were not afraid of an useful material in their business, whic...
^^
Line 13, column 331, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'households'' or 'household's'?
Suggestion: households'; household's
...y billion dollars, which increases each households energy consumption by one percent. This...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, so, still, then, third, thus, well, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1607.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42905405405 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95967349282 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 145.348785872 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.628378378378 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 487.8 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => 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: 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: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.9203715813 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.5294117647 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4117647059 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.23529411765 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.329851270133 0.272083759551 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0921716471277 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0844561340213 0.0662205650399 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172095466604 0.162205337803 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0775976639743 0.0443174109184 175% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 63.6247240618 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.