The passage and lecture discuss burning coal by product which is called coal ash that has many harmful chemical material and how the government propose to create a new strict regulation for handling and storing. The author claims that new regulations are unnecessary and might have a negative effect. The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in lecture. She mentions, it should create a much stricter rules for regulation and recycling coal ash.
To begin with, the author states, regulation s of the environment already exists, This point contradicts by author, She mentions, the regulations which was exists only on new pond and landfill, but do not involve the old ones, which have leakage in the line and led to spread of coal ash to the soil, therefore the new regulation should involve old and new pond and landfill.
Second, the writer argues, creating very strict rules for storing of coal ash will discourage the recycle of it into other products. This argument challenged by professor, she claims, many materials have strict storing rules like mercury, but still used in high amount and recycle to other products without any concern.
Finally, the author says, strict new regulation result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs. In the other hand, the lecturer points out, it is true when new regulations are created, the cost of storing and handling increase, since the cost of electricity will increase, but when we use mathematic analysis, the cost will elevate about 1% for each individual, this value in not a big deal with the benefit of getting a health environment.
The passage and lecture discuss burning coal by product which is called coal ash that has many harmful chemical material and how the government propose to create a new strict regulation for handling and storing. The author claims that new regulations are unnecessary and might have a negative effect. The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in lecture. She mentions, it should create a much stricter rules for regulation and recycling coal ash.
To begin with, the author states, regulation s of the environment already exists, This point contradicts by author, She mentions, the regulations which was exists only on new pond and landfill, but do not involve the old ones, which have leakage in the line and led to spread of coal ash to the soil, therefore the new regulation should involve old and new pond and landfill.
Second, the writer argues, creating very strict rules for storing of coal ash will discourage the recycle of it into other products. This argument challenged by professor, she claims, many materials have strict storing rules like mercury, but still used in high amount and recycle to other products without any concern.
Finally, the author says, strict new regulation result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs. In the other hand, the lecturer points out, it is true when new regulations are created, the cost of storing and handling increase, since the cost of electricity will increase, but when we use mathematic analysis, the cost will elevate about 1% for each individual, this value in not a big deal with the benefit of getting a health environment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-03-29 | talelaldabous | 76 | view |
- The reading passage and lecturer both talk about economic benefits from offering four day work week for employee instead of five days The writer claim several benefits from this offering The lecturer in the other hand casts doubt on claim made in article 60
- The reading passage and lecture are both about the Salton sea California salty island lake The passage claims three ideas to decrease salinity of that lake The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in article He states these solution are impractical First th 60
- The reaging passage and lecturer are both discussing invasion of zebra mussel to fresh water The author claims three reasons to believe that this invasion can not be stoped and cause decline in water fish population The le cturer casts doubt on claim made 60
- The passage and lecture are both about the advantages of team work group The author claims several advantage of group work The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in the article He contradictes each one First the reading passage states working as a group i 60
- The reading passage and the lecture are both talking about humpback whales migrations And how these animals control long distances migration The writer claims humpback whales use stars as navigation He gives several evidences to support his point of view 71
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The passage and lecture discuss burning ...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to other products without any concern Finally the author says strict new regul...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, if, second, so, still, therefore, it is true, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1306.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89138576779 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50831774294 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.513108614232 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 404.1 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.23620309051 12% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 13.0662251656 8% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 267.0 21.2450331126 1257% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 49.2860985944 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1306.0 110.228320801 1185% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 267.0 21.698381199 1231% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 73.0 7.06452816374 1033% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 4.45695364238 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.604519687166 0.272083759551 222% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.604519687166 0.0996497079465 607% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.354823799731 0.162205337803 219% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.246438687878 0.0443174109184 556% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 135.1 13.3589403974 1011% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -191.07 53.8541721854 -355% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 5.55761589404 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 106.2 11.0289183223 963% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 12.56 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 20.13 8.42419426049 239% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 58.0 10.7273730684 541% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 108.8 10.498013245 1036% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.