The reading and the lecture are both about new strict regulations on a waste product called coal ash, which is produced from burning coal in power companies. While the author of the reading passage argues that these rigorous rules might have some negative consequences, the professor disputes this claim. She states that new and more stringent regulations are necessary. The lecturer casts doubt on the main points made in the passage by providing three controversial reasons.
In the reading passage, the writer begins by saying that environmental regulations already exist; for example, the government makes all power companies use liner, which is a material that hinders coal ash components from leaking into the environment. However, the professor disagrees with this idea. She asserts that existing regulations are not sufficient since they require companies to use liner in new landfills and ponds, not the old ones. Therefore, coal ash in these old ponds still leaks into the environment and contaminates drinking water in some places.
Furthermore, according to the text, adopting new strict rules may raise consumers' concerns about buying recycled coal ash products such as concrete and bricks. On the other hand, the professor points out that these regulations will not stop consumers from buying these materials. If we look at how people react to other dangerous materials, for example, mercury, we see that consumers do not refuse to buy recycled mercury while having been recycled for the past 50 years.
Finally, the writer believes that these new regulations result in an increase in electricity costs, which would not be acceptable to people. Not surprisingly, the professor refutes this assertion by contending that the increase in electricity bills as a result of new rules will be up to one percent, which is acceptable compared to the positive impacts of these rules on the environment. She states that these regulations cost about 15 billion dollars for power plant companies, and the result is worth these extra costs.
To sum up, both the lecturer and the author hold conflicting views on applying new environmental regulations to power plant companies.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, furthermore, however, if, look, may, so, still, therefore, while, for example, such as, as a result, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1842.0 1373.03311258 134% => OK
No of words: 347.0 270.72406181 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3083573487 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7817516959 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533141210375 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 556.2 419.366225166 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.5485657034 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.8 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1333333333 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.2 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
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: 0.15719672364 0.272083759551 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0563143452876 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0787733219929 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0863194639922 0.162205337803 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0398493279262 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.