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

Essay topics:

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.
Word Count: 212

The author starts the article by saying that implementing strict rules for managing hazardous chemicals are unnecessary. But the lecturer firmly denies these ideas made by the passage, she stands in opposite position that govt. should impose firm rules in managing dangerous materials caused by burning coal in power plan
There is previously existed rule to dispose of poisonous materials, companies have to use liner in newly constructed ponds or landfills preventing leakage of hazardous material into the environment. the professor doubts on its capacity and adds that companies are not bounded to erect new ponds or landfills so there is a chance for polluting soil by these disposals.
Some critics concern that strict rules increase the redundancy of recycling poisonous material, but professor believes that this idea has no solid evidence. In her illustration, she mentions imposing strict rule on managing potentially harmful mercury by recycling does not stop its use by people.

Disposal cost must increase if strict rules are followed by the company that may lead to raise the price of electricity. The lecturer think this increased amount of disposal cost does not affect the electric bill of the company.

To sum up, the author and the lecturer have conflicting ideas of imposing strict rules on disposing of hazards.

Average: 6.8 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 322, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...als caused by burning coal in power plan There is previously existed rule to disp...
Line 2, column 200, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...azardous material into the environment. the professor doubts on its capacity and ad...
Line 6, column 135, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'thinks'.
Suggestion: thinks
... the price of electricity. The lecturer think this increased amount of disposal cost ...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, so, to sum up

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1141.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 212.0 270.72406181 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3820754717 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.81578560438 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73315986897 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.603773584906 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 351.9 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 56.2830150026 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.777777778 110.228320801 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5555555556 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 7.06452816374 42% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0830054905941 0.272083759551 31% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0315859938341 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0313112289981 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0412100549775 0.162205337803 25% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0367420812768 0.0443174109184 83% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.54 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 22 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 8 12
No. of Words: 212 250
No. of Characters: 1103 1200
No. of Different Words: 131 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.816 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.203 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.653 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 87 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 67 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 53 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 20.062 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.404 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.604 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 4