In this set of materials, the reading passage argues that new regulations for handling and storing coal ash is unnecessary. However, the lecturer finds all the idea dubious and provides some reason to refute them all.
First of all, the author of the passage claims that existing regulations are enough to prevent environmental damage. On the contrary, the professor contends that current regulations force companies to use liner material when they dispose them to new ponds and lands. For better result, stricter regulation is needed to make companies to use it when they discard dangerous ashes in old location because they can leak to drink water and contaminate it. Therefore, current law is not sufficient.
Furthermore, it is mentioned in the passage that consumer will stop using recycled products of coal ash because they consider them as dangerous materials. Conversely, the lecturer believes that if we look at other hazardous materials such as mercury, we can see that for more than 50 years, handling and storing of mercury were strict but people buy recycled items. As a matter of fact, it cannot affect peoples’ decisions. Hence, people will not get afraid of recycled goods.
Finally, the reading asserts that new regulations will increase the cost for power companies and the result is higher price of electricity for general public. In contrast, the lecturer states that although this state is true, it increases the price of it just one percent which is not too much for people. Thus, the cost is not a convincing reason to do not regulate new rules.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 144, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...sult is higher price of electricity for general public. In contrast, the lecturer states that ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, so, therefore, thus, in contrast, such as, as a matter of fact, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1325.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09615384615 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68366469832 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596153846154 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 405.0 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.816178759 49.2860985944 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.923076923 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.6923076923 7.06452816374 180% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.424548969644 0.272083759551 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125690893125 0.0996497079465 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0983351617368 0.0662205650399 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229722973038 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0286841586579 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.