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
The reading states the standpoints of companies about creating new and stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash. The representatives of power companies argue that these new laws are unnecessary and have negative results. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas dubious and provides some evidence to refute them all.
The reading claims that already regulations for this issue exists and they are effective. On the contrary, the lecturer underlines the fact that the current regulations are not sufficient at all. For example, the liner is used only in new pond or landfill not the old ones. In this way, the hazardous substances leak into water ground and contaminate water. New regulations should make all new and old sites to use liner to prevent this danger.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that new regulations might have negative side effects on the recycling of coal ash into other products. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that already restricted regulations exist for other hazardous materials such as mercury for a long time as more than 50 years. In addition, consumers have no concern about the recycled products made from mercury, they have adapted to these laws.
Finally, the author asserts that the new strict regulations contribute to a dramatic increase in disposal and handling for the power companies. Conversely, the professor brings up the idea that the result of new regulations well worth the costs. Implementing new laws would cost 15 billion dollars and result in only a 1% increase in the electricity bill, which is not a big price for having a clean environment.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, furthermore, however, so, well, for example, in addition, in contrast, such as, on the contrary
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 : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1393.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14022140221 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7489511846 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568265682657 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 427.5 419.366225166 102% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.5112225522 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.5 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3571428571 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.64285714286 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0659758675871 0.272083759551 24% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0245584402585 0.0996497079465 25% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0370741994486 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0465268572586 0.162205337803 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0411065666983 0.0443174109184 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.