Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Teacher were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they were nowadays.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer
Both the reading and the lecture are about the rules and regulations for handling and disposal of harmful waste products of burning coal. The article states that there is no need for new regulations to dispose of coal ash and provides three reasons to endorse its ideas. However, the professor excerpts that definitely there should be new and stricter rules and gainsays each of the arguments mentioned in the reading.
First and foremost, the passage begins by asserting that representatives of power companies claim that rules already available are best. For instance, the use of liner in landfills and ponds to prevent coal ash from environmental contamination. On the other hand, the professor explains the existing regulations are not sufficient. Liners are essential for new sites of ash disposal, not for old sites because they are damaged to such an extent that liners would not help. For instance, once at an old site, the disposed chemical got leaked and contaminated the drinking water. Therefore, we need new laws to safely dispose of harmful substances.
Next, the professor further delves into the details by pointing out that stricter rules will not discourage consumers to recycle waste products. She gave an example of mercury to illustrate this. Mercury, a hazardous chemical, in spite of having strict storage and handling procedure, is recycled safely by consumers. Thus it is unlikely that recycling will get affected due to new rules. These claims refute the writer's implication of concerns about recycling coal ash. The stricter rules towards dangerous chemical handling will threaten buyers to buy recycled items.
Ultimately, the article wraps its argument by declaring that as a result of new regulations, the cost of disposal will increase for companies which will give rise to an increase in electricity rates for people. In contrast, the professor rebuts this reason by showing the inaccuracy of the author that although the cost of disposal will increase, the results are a cleaner environment. The well worthy extra cost of $15 Million will only increase 1% in electricity bill. Hence, the new rules are worth applying.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 318, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...edure, is recycled safely by consumers. Thus it is unlikely that recycling will get ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 413, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...e to new rules. These claims refute the writers implication of concerns about recycling...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, so, therefore, thus, well, for instance, in contrast, as a result, in spite of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 15.1003584229 73% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 13.8261648746 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 43.0788530466 42% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 52.1666666667 82% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1805.0 1977.66487455 91% => OK
No of words: 347.0 407.700716846 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20172910663 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75733026991 2.67179642975 103% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 212.727598566 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.559077809798 0.524837075471 107% => OK
syllable_count: 562.5 618.680645161 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 15.0 3.08781362007 486% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1232198552 48.9658058833 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.0 100.406767564 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2631578947 20.6045352989 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.57894736842 5.45110844103 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0209642232563 0.236089414692 9% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00722854892138 0.076458572812 9% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0125136182718 0.0737576698707 17% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0131407560675 0.150856017488 9% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00361143485772 0.0645574589148 6% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 11.7677419355 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.01818996416 114% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 86.8835125448 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
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.