Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash, a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the environment and suggest that the United States government should create new, much stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash. However, representatives of power companies take the opposite view; they argue that new regulations are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences They use the following arguments to support their position. Regulations Exist First, power company representatives point out that effective environmental regulations already exist. For example, one very important regulation requires companies to use liner-special material that prevents coal ash components from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. Companies that dispose of coal ash in disposal ponds or landfills must use liner in every new pond or landfill they build. Concerns About Recycling Coal Ash Second, some analysts predict that creating very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products Currently, a large portion of coal ash generated by power plants is recycled: it is used, for example, in building materials such as concrete and bricks Recycling coal ash reduces the need to dispose of it in other ways and presents no environmental danger. However, if new, stricter rules are adopted for handling coal ash, consumers may become concerned that recycled coal ash products are just too dangerous, and may stop buying the products Increased Cost Finally, strict new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies. perhaps as much as ten times the current costs. Power companies would be forced to increase the price of electricity, which would not be welcomed by the general public.
The reading and the lecture are both about applying the new regulations for storing and handling the coal ash. The author of the reading feels that new rules will not be beneficial. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She believes that we need new regulations to control the handling and storing process of coal ash.
First, the author argues that the regulations on coal ash's handling are already available in the United States. The lecturer challenges this specific argument. She claims that the existing rules are not satisfying. Additionally, he says that stricter rules should be employed in the United States to prevent harmful chemicals' leakage into drinking water.
Secondly, the writer suggests that the more stringent regulations would make recycling less favorable. However, the lecturer refutes this by mentioning that the stricter rules will not necessarily mean not using recycling products. She elaborates on this by bringing up the point that Mercury is one of the most harmful chemicals, but after recycling, it becomes safe and favorable material between consumers.
Finally, the author posits that the new regulations would increase the costs of handling and storing coal ash. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that the cost of these processes will worth it. She notes that new regulations would increase the average consuming electricity bill by only 1 percent.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-03 | YasamanEsml | 80 | view |
| 2023-06-11 | Vivian Chang | 3 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | Zmx_6 | 80 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | Zmx_6 | 3 | view |
| 2023-04-01 | tststs | 3 | view |
- Do you agree or disagreeour current way of life will have a negative impact on future generations. 73
- Because of climate change more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry unusable desert land There are many proposals about how to stop this process known as desertification A number of proposals involve 3
- A company has announced that it wishes to build a large factory near your community. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this new influence on your community. Do you support or oppose the factory? Explain your position 73
- Did bees (a type of insect) exist on Earth as early as 200 million years ago? Such a theory is supported by the discovery of very old fossil structures that resemble bee nests. The structures have been found inside 200- million-year-old fossilized trees i 78
- Underwater whales produce loud noises known as songs Scientists use whale songs to study the movements for migrations of groups of whales Recently scientists discovered something unusual a single solitary whale whose song is unlike that of all other known 71
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 183, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... that new rules will not be beneficial. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 3, column 196, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...ent. She claims that the existing rules are not satisfying. Additionally, he says that stricter r...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 318, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chemicals'' or 'chemical's'?
Suggestion: chemicals'; chemical's
...in the United States to prevent harmful chemicals leakage into drinking water. Secondl...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => 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: 1192.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34529147982 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68366075163 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.542600896861 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 356.4 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.5381333176 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.1428571429 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9285714286 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 7.06452816374 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.139040624622 0.272083759551 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0465642788329 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0549599612825 0.0662205650399 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0882939736111 0.162205337803 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0558155236387 0.0443174109184 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.45 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 183, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... that new rules will not be beneficial. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 3, column 196, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...ent. She claims that the existing rules are not satisfying. Additionally, he says that stricter r...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 318, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chemicals'' or 'chemical's'?
Suggestion: chemicals'; chemical's
...in the United States to prevent harmful chemicals leakage into drinking water. Secondl...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => 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: 1192.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34529147982 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68366075163 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.542600896861 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 356.4 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.5381333176 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.1428571429 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9285714286 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 7.06452816374 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.139040624622 0.272083759551 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0465642788329 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0549599612825 0.0662205650399 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0882939736111 0.162205337803 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0558155236387 0.0443174109184 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.45 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.