tpo 41 new regulations for handling and storing coal ash
The material discusses new regulations that should be allocated for handling and storing coal ash. While the reading states that these new rules are unnecessary and might have detrimental results, the listening challenges this and mentions that definitely, new stricter rules should be addressed for handling and storing coal ash.
First, the author points out that there are effective rules already in place for handling and storing ash. On the other hand, the professor opposes this and says that the old regulations are not sufficient because they allow companies to use liners only when they build new landfills or ponds. The lecturer adds that companies do not use these liners for old ones. The speaker explains that chemicals leaked to water and contaminated it. As a result, the lecturer posits that new regulations should be created for coal disposes of both sides, new and old.
Second, the writer posits that these stricter rules could discourage the recycling of coal ash. On the contrary, the lecturer refutes this and mentions that stricter rules will not stop people from using coal ash recycling materials. The professor gives an example of mercury, which has stricter rules for handling and storing for years, but consumers do not have any concern about using their recycling stuff. The speaker adds that stricter rules will not stop people from buying the products.
Third, the reading states that this approach will be costly. Nevertheless, the listening contradicts this and contends that the result of these new regulations is well-worthy. The professor explains that the analysis found that the cost of the power could be fifteen billion dollars, but mathematically, the electric bills could increase by only one percent. The lecturer concludes that it is not too much to pay for having a clean environment.
- learning is better form people who are high-level or form people who are at our own level 76
- Some young adults want independence from their parents as soon as possible. Other young adults prefer to live with their families for a longer time. Which of these situations do you think is better? Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinio 79
- universities should spend more money on salaries of university professors 76
- top 5 70
- tpo 44 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, nevertheless, second, so, third, well, while, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 16.0 30.3222958057 53% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1540.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2027027027 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58256422295 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493243243243 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 449.1 419.366225166 107% => 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: 16.0 8.23620309051 194% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.1829238659 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.666666667 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7333333333 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.26666666667 7.06452816374 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.478953335793 0.272083759551 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.163181926708 0.0996497079465 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10930023464 0.0662205650399 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.294439059206 0.162205337803 182% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101500592936 0.0443174109184 229% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.