In view of the reading, the author claims that the regulations against coal ash are so strict and unnecessary and it may possible that have bad effect, by pointing out 3 reasons of support. Finding the statement arguable, the lecturer casts doubt on the claim made by the article and presents some evidence in contrary.
At first, the author argues that there are some regulation now, which enough for being against coal ash. For instance, using liner in order to prevent leaking out of coal ash is one of this good regulations. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that this regulation is only for the new landfills and the old ones can cost significant damage due to accessing the coal ash in water.
In addition, the reading passage holds the view that there are many harmful materials which can recycle and create good ones. As a matter of fact, coal ash also can be used in building materials and these regulations have been shown one of the discouragements of recycling. On the other hand, the lecturer disputes this point by clarifying the fact that this material like mercury, as a harmful material, can not recycle efficiently and they can store and have bad effect on environment.
Finally, the author asserts increasing the costs for the power companies by considering these rules as the last point for supporting the negative effect of the regulation. The lecturer, though, dismisses it by saying the point that this extra cost is about 15 bilion dollars and electricity contain only a few percent of that. Considering this few percent, it is not big deal when it comes to environment.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, first, if, may, so, for instance, in addition, as a matter of fact, 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: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1341.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87636363636 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66534788327 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552727272727 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 408.6 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4859531462 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.909090909 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1818181818 7.06452816374 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.394101611 0.272083759551 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149799759859 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101961186551 0.0662205650399 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220025064918 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100005042615 0.0443174109184 226% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.