Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash, a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the environment and suggest that the United States government should create new, much stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash.
However, representatives of power companies take the opposite view; they argue that new regulations are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences They use the following arguments to support their position.
Regulations Exist
First, power company representatives point out that effective environmental regulations already exist. For example, one very important regulation requires companies to use liner-special material that prevents coal ash components from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. Companies that dispose of coal ash in disposal ponds or landfills must use liner in every new pond or landfill they build.
Concerns About Recycling Coal Ash
Second, some analysts predict that creating very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products Currently, a large portion of coal ash generated by power plants is recycled: it is used, for example, in building materials such as concrete and bricks Recycling coal ash reduces the need to dispose of it in other ways and presents no environmental danger. However, if new, stricter rules are adopted for handling coal ash, consumers may become concerned that recycled coal ash products are just too dangerous, and may stop buying the products
Increased Cost
Finally, strict new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies. perhaps as much as ten times the current costs. Power companies would be forced to increase the price of electricity, which would not be welcomed by the general public.
The reading passage claims that the waste product called coal ash, have not a large amount of harmful chemicals and it says that the new strict regulation for some reason are not efficient. However, the lecture casts doubt on this view.
The lecturer explains that the current rules about Coul Ash have not been effective during this years. For example this rule is not about the old ponds and it is valid just for new one.While the old ponds produce a lot of waste liquid and the current rules do not have any ponishment for them.
The speaker also refutes the reading' s claim about the effect of new regulation on the consumer by the recyling procees. He says that there have been some product for example, the mercury which it is produsing for 50 years and a very strict rule have been about it. But it's recycling process has not any effect on the consumer.
Finally, the speaker challenges the reading statement which, the new rules could have effects on increase of electricity price. He says that the cost of this industry has been 15 billion dollers and the new strict regulation might have a one percent increase to this price. So he concludes that it is not a very expencive policy which make the people effected and it is the cost of better enviroiment.
At the end the lecturer says the the new strict regulation to decrease waste products (in this case Coal Ash) is a necessary poly for the future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 92, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...Coul Ash have not been effective during this years. For example this rule is not abo...
^^^^
Line 3, column 186, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: While
... ponds and it is valid just for new one.While the old ponds produce a lot of waste li...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 30, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...oiment. At the end the lecturer says the the new strict regulation to decrease waste...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 30, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...oiment. At the end the lecturer says the the new strict regulation to decrease waste...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, so, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1168.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 253.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.61660079051 5.08290768461 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98822939669 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.30185493534 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 124.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.490118577075 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 361.8 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.9293095662 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.181818182 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.63636363636 7.06452816374 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.118003615619 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0492260069469 0.0996497079465 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751037178209 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0887110733857 0.162205337803 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0774756471132 0.0443174109184 175% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 53.8541721854 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.2367328918 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.