Tpo41: professor and passage challenge each others on how to rules on coal ash could beneficial
In this set of materials, the reading passage presents arguments why not new strike rules should establish to handling coal ash. However, the professor challenges this point of view and provides three evidences to refute them all.
First of all, the author of the passage holds the view that power companies already use liner-special to prevents coal ash seek to soil or nearby environment. In contrast, the lecturer casts doubt on the reading by saying that companies use liner only for new landfill; while, a considerable amount of coal ash leakage to ground-water by old landfills and contaminated waters. Hence, there should be strikes rules to hire liners for old landfills as well as new ones.
Secondly, the article clams that by establishing new rules people become more concern on buying recycled coal ash materials such as bricks and will not willing to buy products. The professor, however, rebuts this point and states that there was a similar experience on mercury recycled produced but people did not halt stop buy that.
Finally, the reading passage asserts that the costs of power companies will rise by sticking to new rules, and the result will unpleasant to many people. The professor challenges this point and says that also the price will increase, however, that rises in price will not significant to affect peoples’ life and near one present. But the consequence is really noticeable for environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 393, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e is really noticeable for environment.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, well, while, in contrast, such as, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 10.4613686534 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1200.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 234.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12820512821 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91114542567 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69530426103 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.581196581197 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 358.2 419.366225166 85% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => 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: 45.3898667105 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.0 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.6 7.06452816374 193% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 0.352476351513 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.138643884832 0.0996497079465 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.087665363853 0.0662205650399 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.203537519878 0.162205337803 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0877028070669 0.0443174109184 198% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.