coal ash contamination
The passage presents arguments made by the representatives of power companies which claim that stricter regulations regarding the handling and storing coal ash are unnecessary. The lecturer disregards points made in the article, and she believes stricter rules should definitely be implemented. Her further demonstrations are as follows.
Firstly, although it is true that regulations for handling and storing of coal ash already exist, they are barely adequate. The obligation of using liner to prevent contamination of the environment by coal ash components only applies to the new companies and newly built ponds and landfills. However, old ponds and landfills can also be the culprit of contamination. For instance, leakage from an old company structure once polluted the drinking water. Regulations should adress the usage of liner in both new and old structures.
Secondly, applying strict rules for handling and storing coal ash is not considered likely to frighten the consumers using coal ash recycled products, despite what the passage claims. Based on past exprience, when regulations regarding mercury, a hazardous substance, were made, people still used products that employed recycled or modified mercury extensively. Hence, the strict enforcements will probably not affect consumer atitude.
Finally, while it is true that the new regulations would add to the cost of handling coal ash by power companies, this cost increase will not be as pronounced in the consumer bills as the passage claims. It is assumed that by employment of such new regulations the electricity bill of general households will increase by only 1%, which can be inferred as a very small price to preserve the health of our environment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-06-26 | Seyed Armin Mirhosseini | 80 | view |
| 2020-02-20 | sarkar | 63 | view |
| 2019-09-04 | raminshahbad | 85 | view |
| 2019-07-18 | mike10m1 | 81 | view |
| 2019-06-25 | popop | 85 | view |
- elephants behavior 78
- TPO 41 independent agree or not teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they are nowadays 90
- The article asserts that working in a four day workweek setting is extremely beneficial for both companies and employees However the lecturer completely disagrees with this idea and rejects all three reasons mentioned in the passage His opposite explanati 80
- young people more independent today or in the past 78
- quickly changing world makes people happier or not 90
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, while, for instance, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1464.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44237918216 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99469087947 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568773234201 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 446.4 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => 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: 55.3444298657 49.2860985944 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.615384615 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6923076923 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.38461538462 7.06452816374 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.276524724409 0.272083759551 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0875904386274 0.0996497079465 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118550223306 0.0662205650399 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157327440409 0.162205337803 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0552028118639 0.0443174109184 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.32 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.