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.
In this set of material, the writer strongly postulates that regulation for handling and storing pf coal ash is insanely unnecessary, and provides three reasons to endorse its idea. On the other hand, the lecturer casts doubts by stating that reasons are dubious, and stricter regulations need to be adopted and gainsays each of its arguments
First and foremost, the writer begins by asserting that regulations already exist as companies who dispose of coal ash as a chemical use the liner to prevent its leakage and contamination. The lecturer refutes this claim by indicating that though liners are used, they are only used in landfills and newly built ponds. However, the problem exists in older ponds which cause damage as when chemicals leaked from these ponds, they contaminate the drinking water which is completely deleterious for public health. Thus, liners need to be used at all locations older and newer.
Furthermore, the lecturer argued that consumers would not stop using the recycled products made from coal ashes as predicted by the writer. He exemplifies it by stating about previous such incidence. In the case of mercury, when mercury was declared hazardous people didn't stop using the recycled products made from it; rather, used careful techniques that extremely reduced their concerns. This refutes the writer's implication that people get concerns about the usage of recycled products if strict rules are implemented for coal ash.
Ultimately, the writer wraps its arguments by declaring that these handling and storing regulations would be a financial burden on the power companies' economy. Not surprisingly, the lecturer rebates this argument by indicating that no doubt, power companies would have a 15 billion dollar budget, but the average increase in the household bills would be less than 1%. Consequently, this is not a big price for the provision of a clean and safe environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 267, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...n mercury was declared hazardous people didnt stop using the recycled products made f...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 408, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...educed their concerns. This refutes the writers implication that people get concerns ab...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 142, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'companies'' or 'company's'?
Suggestion: companies'; company's
...ould be a financial burden on the power companies economy. Not surprisingly, the lecturer...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, so, thus, no doubt, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1611.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24755700326 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71977803196 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 145.348785872 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586319218241 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 495.0 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.8455353823 49.2860985944 152% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.25 110.228320801 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5833333333 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.41666666667 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.150327829052 0.272083759551 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577358730245 0.0996497079465 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0446688488654 0.0662205650399 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0856185049766 0.162205337803 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0352173479445 0.0443174109184 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 10.7273730684 182% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.