tpo41
Both article and lecturer offer two opposing views on the consequences of the restrict regulation for handling and storing coal ash. While the reading part lists three negative side-effects of this incident, the professor counters these specific points and presents some clues to call into the question for the information mentioned in the passage.
First of all, the article posits that the regulation rule currently exists, and there is no demand for the further rules. However, the instructor challenges the validity of this claim. As she asserts, although there is a regulation for the coal ash such as the liner, it is applied solely to the new disposal ponds and landfills. This is not sufficient since the old ponds and landfills lead to the big damage and pollution on the environment. For instance, the coal ash of the old pond contaminates the drinking water. Therefore, there should be a restricted rule which covers the new companies as well as the old ones.
Next, the text assumes that the regulation can discourage the people from the recycling the coal ash which has the plenty utilization in the construction materials. On the contrary, the lecturer dismisses this point due to an instance of another harmful substance. Based on her declaration, the Mercury is known as the haphazardous material too. On the other hand, it has been recycling over the fifty years, and consumers do not afraid of its usage. As a result, this rule would not alter the people's attitude toward the recycling the coal ash.
Finally, the lecture mentions that the increased cost of the energy by this rule which the general public would not welcome is another problem of this issue. On the other hand, the lecturer underlines the amount of the increment to reject this issue. As she states, the total enhancement in the energy cost would be about the fifty billion dollars. This is a huge amount of money; otherwise, if it has divided among the whole dwellers, the average increase pre-home will be one percent, which could be neglected for having a clean environment.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more important to keep your old friends than it is to make new friends. 80
- 9.The following appeared in a health newsletter."A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that num 46
- tpo 3 80
- 1.The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the stateme 50
- The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life that it has become a more important form of documentation than written records." 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 75, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...o opposing views on the consequences of the restrict regulation for handling and storing coa...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 495, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...a result, this rule would not alter the peoples attitude toward the recycling the coal ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 92, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...st of the energy by this rule which the general public would not welcome is another problem of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'therefore', 'well', 'while', 'for instance', 'such as', 'as a result', 'as well as', 'first of all', 'on the contrary', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.257142857143 0.261695866417 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.12987012987 0.158904122519 82% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0701298701299 0.0723426182421 97% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0363636363636 0.0435111971325 84% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0181818181818 0.0277247811725 66% => OK
Prepositions: 0.119480519481 0.128828473217 93% => OK
Participles: 0.038961038961 0.0370669169778 105% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.6629084159 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.012987012987 0.0208969081088 62% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.18961038961 0.128158765124 148% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0181818181818 0.0158828679856 114% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0103896103896 0.0114777025283 91% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2072.0 1645.83664459 126% => OK
No of words: 347.0 271.125827815 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.9711815562 6.08160592843 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.04852973271 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.345821325648 0.374372842146 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.268011527378 0.287516216867 93% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.204610951009 0.187439937562 109% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.126801152738 0.113142543107 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6629084159 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541786743516 0.539623497131 100% => OK
Word variations: 58.701779792 53.8517498576 109% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0529801325 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.4117647059 21.7502111507 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.4843114549 49.3711431718 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.882352941 132.220823453 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4117647059 21.7502111507 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.882352941176 0.878197800319 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.39072847682 88% => OK
Readability: 47.2129174436 50.5018328374 93% => OK
Elegance: 2.25352112676 1.90840788429 118% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.543698776273 0.549887131256 99% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.133613322443 0.142949733639 93% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0656474902214 0.0787303798458 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.66420826872 0.631733273073 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.0858749178201 0.139662658121 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.278408097852 0.266732575781 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0784141882275 0.103435571967 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.619336302407 0.414875509568 149% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0556912725603 0.0530846634433 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.431456387216 0.40443939384 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0514573375124 0.0528353158467 97% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.26048565121 117% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 3.49668874172 114% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 3.62251655629 166% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 3.1766004415 126% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 10.2958057395 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.