adopting new stricter regulation for handing and storing coal ash
The reading and the lecture have contradictory opinions about adopting new stricter regulation for handing and storing coal ash. The article strongly postulates that such a regulation not only is not necessary but also bring some negative results, so some of these negative consequences according to the author's view are mentioned in the extract. On the other hand, the professor adamantly delineates that the world is in the demand of such a regulation and denies each of the author's points.
First and foremost, according to the author of the excerpt, effectual environmental laws are already applied in the world like enforcing of use of liner-special material by which coal ash will not leak into the soil and so on. The lecture offset this claim by declaring that this regulation consists only companies that use new land and ponds, not those companies in using of old ones. He uses this explanation to make clear that new laws need to engulf both groups of companies.
The author in the passage further asserts that new regulations can hinder the recycling of coal ash into other products, like in building materials, by making consumers consider coal ash products as dangerous ones and don't by them anymore. The lecture, in the contrast, refutes this view by talking about the same regulations for other products like mercury and mentioning that there have not been any concerns in consumers. He refers to such a regulation as success one without this negative result pointed by reading.
The text lasting insisting that new laws enhance the cost of power companies and following price of electricity, which would disappoint the public. Nonetheless, the professor in the extract oppose this assertion of the author by saying that increased cost resulted from new regulations is as negligible in comparison to average yearly bill of electricity for individuals, roughly one percent, that it worth to have a clean environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 477, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...such a regulation and denies each of the authors points. First and foremost, acc...
^^
Line 4, column 219, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...coal ash products as dangerous ones and dont by them anymore. The lecture, in the co...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, nonetheless, so, talking about, on the other hand
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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1623.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 316.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13607594937 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79667173204 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544303797468 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 506.7 419.366225166 121% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.1536729611 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.545454545 110.228320801 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.7272727273 21.698381199 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.09090909091 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.352281831548 0.272083759551 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135572978967 0.0996497079465 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.171910661466 0.0662205650399 260% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202161106346 0.162205337803 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.111028409196 0.0443174109184 251% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 13.3589403974 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.