TPO 41Question: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they change the specific arguments presented in the reading passage. making sever rules for recycling of coal ash.

The main idea of both the reading and the lecturer is about the rules for handling and disposing harmful waste product of burning coal in power plants named coal ash. Although the reading mentions that regulating strict rules is not efficient, the lecturer strongly agrees that it is necessary to enact strong rules to prevent environmental damages and categorically refuses the reasons mentioned in the reading.
First off, the reading states that there are already several rules to prevent contamination of ponds and landfills using liners. However, the lecturer posits that the rules we already have are not enough to pursue and the liners are merely used by new landfills and ponds. Meanwhile, the old landfills and ponds are not benefited from these liners. Overall, the contamination would leak into the underground waters and pollute whole water. Thus, some strict rules should be enacted to prevent polluting both new and old landfills.
Furthermore, the reading mentions that customers may stop buying coal ash to use for recycling and producing other useful materials since they find them dangerous. On the other hand, the lecturer explains that new regulations do not necessarily stop people using this product for recycle. According to the lecturer, people will get used to them like other harmful chemicals such as Mercury which is being handed and disposed for almost 50 years successfully, and they are still in use and trade.
Eventually, the reading states that the new rules would be costly. In contrast, the lecturer mentions that however the expense are too much, the results will worth it. According to the research, the cost of strict regulations would be 15 billion dollars. But if one compares this number with the cost of average house holding electricity which is one percent of that cost, he will realize that it would be worthwhile to enact new rules.

Votes
Average: 8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 189, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...r posits that the rules we already have are not enough to pursue and the liners are...
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, still, thus, while, in contrast, such as, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1579.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12662337662 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57123794059 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542207792208 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 475.2 419.366225166 113% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.5619797438 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.785714286 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.57142857143 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.389422580813 0.272083759551 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123171651196 0.0996497079465 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0980772700181 0.0662205650399 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215048644521 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0762352094302 0.0443174109184 172% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.