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.
Both the reading and the lecture talk about necessity of passing new regulations and laws for handeling and disposal of coal ash in the power plants. While the author proposes three reasons of support to reject the necessity of these laws, the lecturer insists that government should enacts restrict regulations in this regard.
First, the professor avers that the existing regulations are not sufficient. As she mentioned, those laws obligate factories to apply liner materials only for new pools and landfields, whereby the old landfilds and pools should be subjected to the new regulations. Since the old pools and landfileds have some leakage issues, they contaminate the water and soil resources. She repudiates the writer's opinion that the existed laws are workable and there is no need to pass the new ones.
Second, the professor asserts that passing more restricting regulations for handeling coal ash does not necessarilly mean that consumers of coal ash avoid to recycle them. She said an example about the mercury, which has been a hazardous matrial with very restrict handling procedures and many consumers are adopting the methods to recycle that. Hence, she directly rejects the idea of writer that new laws will negatively affect the recycle industry of coal ash.
Third, the speaker posits that even the new handling regulations will add more cost on the power plants and will increase the cost of electrical power, it is worth applying those regulaions; because it is a matter of health of people. Additionally, concidering all the cost of power plants after those regulations, there will not be a surge of cost but just one percent in power cost of houses. With this justification she rebuts the opinion of the author which new laws have a dire financial consequence for people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 285, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'should' requires the base form of the verb: 'enact'
Suggestion: enact
...lecturer insists that government should enacts restrict regulations in this regard. ...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... restrict regulations in this regard. First, the professor avers that the exis...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 398, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... and soil resources. She repudiates the writers opinion that the existed laws are worka...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...there is no need to pass the new ones. Second, the professor asserts that passi...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 92, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re restricting regulations for handeling coal ash does not necessarilly mean that...
^^
Line 3, column 157, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'avoid recycling'.
Suggestion: avoid recycling
...sarilly mean that consumers of coal ash avoid to recycle them. She said an example about the mer...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ect the recycle industry of coal ash. Third, the speaker posits that even the ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, second, so, third, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1506.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10508474576 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67624918143 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545762711864 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 460.8 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.7598957002 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.5 110.228320801 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5833333333 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.91666666667 7.06452816374 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.105588606274 0.272083759551 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0398889470112 0.0996497079465 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0433367066973 0.0662205650399 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0650633415864 0.162205337803 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0306572455921 0.0443174109184 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.