TPO-41 - Integrated Writing Task 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.
In the reading materials, the author writes about that although the environmentalists in the United States are promoting much stricter regulations for handing and storing coal ash, the representatives of power companies take some opposite views. However, these views from those companies are argued by the professor in the listening material.
First, These companies claims that the effective environmental regulations already exist, which they could use the liner to prevent coal ash components form leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. However, the professor argues that the liner is used only on the new landfills and new ponds, not also on the old ponds and landfills. Since the coal ash would even affect the drinking water and be harmful to people, the companies need to prevent the all coal ash both new and old in all sites.
Second, though the analysts predicts the recycling products from coal ash may make people scared and refuse to buy the products. On the contrary, the lecturer claims that it is impossible and argues with an example of a likely product named merculary. People finally adapted with this with few concerns.
Finally, the professor thinks that indeed the recycling would cost money, but he thinks the money form recycling is worth to cost because the result is much better. Also, it is not a big bill which only needs one percentage to raise in the whole cost.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Movies and TV programs made in your own country are more interesting than movies and programs made in others. 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Workers would be much better if they are doing different types of tasks at the same time than doing the same task. 75
- TPO-41 - Integrated Writing Task 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 har 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People should not have to pay for public transportation that they use. 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Only people who earn a lot of money are successful. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, may, second, so, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1197.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 235.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09361702128 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91531732006 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69560277717 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595744680851 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 359.1 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.9684123002 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.7 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.480221954721 0.272083759551 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.15381644942 0.0996497079465 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128077138573 0.0662205650399 193% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.241010666685 0.162205337803 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.136348745339 0.0443174109184 308% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 63.6247240618 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.