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 migh
The reading material and the speaker are both talking about the new regulations for dealing with coal ash. While the author of the article suggest that these new rules are unnecessary and probably have disadvantages, the speaker disputes the claims mentioned in the lecture.
To begin with, according to the passage, existing regulations are effective. The article mentions that liner, a special material that a regulation requires companies to use, is effective to prevent coal ash from leaking. This specific claim is challenged by the speaker. He claims that this regulation is not effective enough. Additionally, he points out that only newly built ponds or landfills are required to use liner, while the old ones are not, resulting in contaminating water.
Secondly, the author suggests that strict regulations prevent consumers from using recycled coal ash products. The article notes that consumers may be concerned that recycled products are to dangerous. The lecture, however, suggests that the regulations do not mean people will stop using recycled products. She goes on to say that mercury is a successful example for strict rules because of its successful and safe daily use.
Finally, the author puts forth the idea that the rules may increase cost. The author contends that increased cost can result in increased price of electricity. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that the increased cost is well worthy. She says that the cost is about 15 billion dollars and it only causes about one percent increase in price.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-03 | YasamanEsml | 80 | view |
| 2023-06-11 | Vivian Chang | 3 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | Zmx_6 | 80 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | Zmx_6 | 3 | view |
| 2023-04-01 | tststs | 3 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Movies and television have more negative effects than positive effects on the way young people behave Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 66
- Some parents offer their school age children money for each high grade mark they get in school Do you think this is a good idea Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they are nowadays Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Workers are more satisfied when they have many different types of tasks to do during the workday than when they do similar tasks all day long Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 60
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In the past it was easier to identify what type of career or job would lead to a secure successful future Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 189, Rule ID: TO_TOO[4]
Message: Did you mean 'too'?
Suggestion: too
...be concerned that recycled products are to dangerous. The lecture, however, sugges...
^^
Line 7, column 178, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
... price of electricity. In contrast, the lecturers stance is that the increased cost is we...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, may, second, secondly, well, while, in contrast, talking about, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1296.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 247.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24696356275 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69298034275 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562753036437 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 396.9 419.366225166 95% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.5886224123 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.4 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4666666667 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.6 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.100693402907 0.272083759551 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.036252558894 0.0996497079465 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0485739262574 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0605636327432 0.162205337803 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0247255640101 0.0443174109184 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 189, Rule ID: TO_TOO[4]
Message: Did you mean 'too'?
Suggestion: too
...be concerned that recycled products are to dangerous. The lecture, however, sugges...
^^
Line 7, column 178, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
... price of electricity. In contrast, the lecturers stance is that the increased cost is we...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, may, second, secondly, well, while, in contrast, talking about, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1296.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 247.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24696356275 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69298034275 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562753036437 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 396.9 419.366225166 95% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.5886224123 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.4 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4666666667 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.6 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.100693402907 0.272083759551 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.036252558894 0.0996497079465 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0485739262574 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0605636327432 0.162205337803 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0247255640101 0.0443174109184 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.