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.
The author and the speaker have different attitudes towards new regulations for handling and storing coal ash. While the writer deems those regulations might lead negative result, the speaker refutes his points with examples and reasons.
First of all, the author claims that there already have effective environmental regulations that companies are required to use linear to prevent soil contamination. However, the lecturer disagree with idea and thinks regulations only target on the new landfills or ponds and do not apply on the old ponds. This will casue the harmful chemiscals from the old ponds leak into underwater, thereby contaminating people's drinking water. Therefore, stricter rules are needed to restrict the old ponds as well as the new ones.
Second, the passage says that strict rule may discourage the recycle process and make people stop buying products. On the contrary, the professor refutes that strict rules do not mean stopping products, which can be supported by an example, mercery. This kind of material have been strictly handled for many year but it's still under successful recycling. Moreover, people have few concern about the recycled products. Therefore, it is unlikely that people will stop buying those product, which contradicted the point made in the passage.
Finally, opposing to the author's third view that strict new rule would increase costin disposal and handling, the lecturer argues that the result of strict rules is well worthy the cost. This is because although 15 million dollars cost is added, which sounds like a huge number, the price of electricity of average family only increases 1 persent, which is not a big 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 |
- some people believe that it is an important part of a chid s education to go on field trips others think that a child s time is better spent in a classroom at school 73
- Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of frog croaks so they called the 83
- It is commonly believed that in life success is not the most important thing It is more important to remain happy and optimistic when we fail Do you agree with this idea 80
- In the past it was easier to identify what type of career or job would lead to a secure successful future 73
- Tpo41Burning 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 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 304, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun year seems to be countable; consider using: 'many years'.
Suggestion: many years
...material have been strictly handled for many year but its still under successful recyclin...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 378, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun concern seems to be countable; consider using: 'few concerns'.
Suggestion: few concerns
...essful recycling. Moreover, people have few concern about the recycled products. Therefore,...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 474, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this product' or 'those products'?
Suggestion: this product; those products
...s unlikely that people will stop buying those product, which contradicted the point made in t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, still, therefore, third, well, while, kind of, as well as, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1416.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 268.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28358208955 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56239795313 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.649253731343 0.540411800872 120% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.4486583073 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.923076923 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6153846154 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.4615384615 7.06452816374 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.0662097922444 0.272083759551 24% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0249436755852 0.0996497079465 25% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0252011201408 0.0662205650399 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0356100125169 0.162205337803 22% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0236499187205 0.0443174109184 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.