In the reading, the author introduces coal ash, a waste product containing deleterious substances and claims that strict regulations are not necessary to handle it. Then, he provides three reasons of support. However, finding all the ideas questionable and implausible, the lecturer repudiates the argument and presents some evidence on the contrary.
Firstly, the author argues that regulations already exist to prevent environmental damage and mentions the strict rule regarding liner usage. The professor refutes the point by saying that existing rules are not sufficient. For example, the rule only force to use liner for new lands and ponds. As a result, old sites leak harmful materials in the water. He emphasizes to use liner in both new and old sites.
In addition, the passage holds the view that strict regulations discourage coal ash recycling. Also, it mentions that customers will be concerned with recycled products. However, the professor marks the author's concern as an unwarranted assumption and for his support, he gives the example of Mercury. It is successfully recycled for over 50 years and consumers are afraid to use it.
Finally, the reading posits that strict new regulation will cause increased costs in material management. The professor opposes the point by explaining that although the cost will increase, its' result is well worth. We also learn that analyst has calculated that the net cost will increase by 15 billion dollars which will increase an average consumer's household expense by only one percent.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, however, regarding, so, then, well, for example, in addition, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1304.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 244.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34426229508 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95227774224 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76004432309 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.627049180328 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 397.8 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.6598873759 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.9333333333 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2666666667 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.06666666667 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.326156397523 0.272083759551 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0961251747744 0.0996497079465 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.075209918072 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178328909639 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0514697073826 0.0443174109184 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.8 8.42419426049 116% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.