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.
Recently, there has been a ton of debates about the importance of new regulations for handling and storing coal ash. More specifically, according to the passage, the writer puts forth the idea that the new regulations do not have any impacts and may have unfavorable results. In the listening passage, the lecturer is quick to point out there are some serious flaws in the writer's claims. The professor believes that governments should create new strict regulations for handling coal ash, and addresses, in detail the trouble with each point made in the reading text.
First and foremost, the author of the reading passage states that the most effective regulations already exist. Some professionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. In the lecturer, for example, the professor states that the regulations already have are not sufficient. He goes on to say that both new and old landfills must apply linear to prevent the contamination of groundwater.
One group of scholars, represented by the writer, thinks that these new regulations may decrease the value of recycling issues between people. Of course, though, not all experts in this field believe this is true. Again, the speaker specifically addresses this point when she states that many hazardous materials are being recycled and used by people. For instance, mercury is one of the most hazardous material, however, after successfully recycled, people are less concerned about its danger.
Finally, the author wraps his argument by positing that applying the new regulations may increase the cost of electricity. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes this issue with his claim by contending that the increase in electricity house bill that results from applying the new regulations will not exceed one percent, which is small compared to the positive impacts of new regulations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 285, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...tates that the regulations already have are not sufficient. He goes on to say that ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, so, for example, for instance, of course
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 : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1587.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30769230769 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81401510285 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56856187291 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 477.0 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.3395353901 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.357142857 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3571428571 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0888702700506 0.272083759551 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0315461027204 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0300398557058 0.0662205650399 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0510786823168 0.162205337803 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0280095441705 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.