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.
Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss whether the United States government should create stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash. The passage provides three reasons to claim that new regulations might have negative consequences. However, the professor of the lecture casts doubt on all the reasons mentioned in the passage.
First of all, the passage states that the effective environmental regulations already exist. For example, the regulation that requires companies to use liner in every new pond or landfill they build. Nevertheless, the professor counters the passage by pointing out that the regulation mentioned in the passage only apply to new ponds and landfills, but there is no regulation that applies to old ponds and landfills. Thus, it is necessary to create regulations that apply to new and old facilities.
Secondly, the passage mentions that creating very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might make consumers become concerned that recycled coal ash products are too dangerous. Notwithstanding, the professor disagrees with the passage by citing one example. She claims that mercury, a dangerous material, has been regulated by strict rules for more than fifty years, yet only few consumers concerned about products made in this material.
Finally, the passage argues that strict new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies, which would force them to increase the price of electricity. However, the professor refutes the passage by arguing that creating strict rules is well worth the additional cost. She says that if the cost for the companies increase fifteen billions, though it may sounds a lot, the price of electricity for each household would increase only one percent, which is not significant at all.
| 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 disagree with the following statement When teachers assign projects on which students must work together the students learn much more effectively than when they are asked to work alone on projects Use specific reasons and examples to suppo 73
- In 1995 a microscopic fungus called Phytophthora ramorum or P ramorum was first detected in the forests of the western United States P ramorum infects trees and causes particularly serious damage in oak trees in many infected oaks leaves wither rapidly la 78
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement If people have the opportunity to get a secure job they should take it right away rather than wait for a job that would be more satisfying Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 80
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, well, for example, first of all
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: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41319444444 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78433037905 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545138888889 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3344988213 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.923076923 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1538461538 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.61538461538 7.06452816374 122% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0761174126419 0.272083759551 28% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0293257693331 0.0996497079465 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0474546360884 0.0662205650399 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0540730435067 0.162205337803 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0455086751322 0.0443174109184 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.