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 and the lecture are both about government ought to arrange new rules for coal ash in order to provide a good environment. The author of the reading feels that the new regulations are unneeded because of their possible negative effects and current ones are effective. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. she is the opinion that regulations are not strict.
To begin with, the author argues that the existence of regulations is effective and companies match those rules by using lines to leak ashes into soil. The article mentions that corporations destroy coal ash by filling lands and providing new liner every time they build. this specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. she claims regulations are not sufficient because companies use old liners, not the new ones, companies are not required to add lines. Additionally, she says the soils from old lines have harmful ash chemicals, those are going to rivers and people drink those waters.
Secondly, the writer suggests sharp decisions about the care of coal ash may affect the buying attitudes of consumers. In the article, it is said that a large part of coal ash is recycling by generated power plants ensuring no environmental damage. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that strict regulations will not stop consumer buying. she elaborates on this by bringing up the point that mercury has its` own material, despite the rules, successfully recycle. With a very strict regulations, consumers will not afraid of coal ashes, it will not affect consumers.
Finally, the author posits that sharp obligations will create a cost for power companies, as a result, a sudden increase in electricity occurs. Moreover, in the article, it is stated that people will not be happy. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that the cost of ash will increase with strict regulations. she notes that according to analysts the cost will be 15 billion. But, for each house, it is going to be only a %1 increase which is not a big price to pay for an environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 280, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...effects and current ones are effective. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 1, column 335, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...allenges the claims made by the author. she is the opinion that regulations are not...
^^^
Line 2, column 273, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...viding new liner every time they build. this specific argument is challenged by the ...
^^^^
Line 2, column 327, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...argument is challenged by the lecturer. she claims regulations are not sufficient b...
^^^
Line 3, column 353, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...ulations will not stop consumer buying. she elaborates on this by bringing up the p...
^^^
Line 3, column 502, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'regulation'?
Suggestion: regulation
...uccessfully recycle. With a very strict regulations, consumers will not afraid of coal ashe...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 313, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
... will increase with strict regulations. she notes that according to analysts the co...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1717.0 1373.03311258 125% => OK
No of words: 344.0 270.72406181 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99127906977 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72305218143 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 145.348785872 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540697674419 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 532.8 419.366225166 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 3.25607064018 338% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.4917206586 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.3684210526 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1052631579 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42105263158 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127685980963 0.272083759551 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0382409591826 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0422690954701 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0736983672798 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0281059730986 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.