The author states that the representatives of power companies oppose the view of the environmentalists in the United States about the new regulations of handling and storing coal ash. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter-argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these arguments do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that the regulations are already existing. So it is no need to change those rules. For example, one very important regulation require companies to use liner. Actually, companies are using liner in every new pond they build. On the contrary, the lecturer cannot disagree more, reasoning that these companies do use liners in the new lands. This is not sufficient for the existing lands. Therefore, the leak of the dangerous chemicals is high in the existing lands.
The second argument the author gives is the concern about recycling coal ash. Some analysts predict that certain strict rules for storing coal might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. Consequently people may stop buying the products. However, the professor cannot be more outraged, explaining that these rules would help to store the product for a long term and safe condition. For instance, mercury another element is handled safe because of these strict rules that existed for 50 years. As a result, people still are buying that.
Lastly, on one hand, the passage points out that new rules would increase significantly the cost of the coal ash. Nevertheless, the lecturer declares that it it worth it to pay in order to have a clean environment. It might sound to much, but when you do the math it is only 1 percent increase. So, all can afford to pay for that positive change.
The author states that the representatives of power companies oppose the view of the environmentalists in the United States about the new regulations of handling and storing coal ash. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter-argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these arguments do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that the regulations are already existing, so it is no need to change those rules. For example, one very important regulation require companies to use liner. Actually, companies are using liner in every new pond they build. On the contrary, the lecturer cannot disagree more, reasoning that these companies do use liners in the new lands. This is not sufficient for the existing lands. Therefore, the leak of the dangerous chemicals is high in the existing land.
The second argument the author gives is that the concerns about recycling coal ash. Some analysts predict that certain strict rules for storing coal might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. Consequently people may stop buying the products. However, the professor cannot be more outraged, explaining that these rules would help to store the product for a long term and safe. For instance, mercury another element is handled safe because of these strict rules that existed for 50 years. As a result, people still are buying that.
Lastly, on one hand, the passage points out that new rules would increase significantly the cost of the coal ash. Nevertheless, the lecturer declares that it it worth it to pay in order to have a clean environment. It might sound to much, but when you do the math it is only 1 percent increase. So, all can afford to pay for that positive change.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 214, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Consequently,
...ycling of coal ash into other products. Consequently people may stop buying the products. Ho...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 156, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: it
...evertheless, the lecturer declares that it it worth it to pay in order to have a clea...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 231, Rule ID: TO_TOO[2]
Message: Did you mean 'too'?
Suggestion: too
...ave a clean environment. It might sound to much, but when you do the math it is on...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, consequently, first, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, second, so, still, therefore, for example, for instance, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1438.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02797202797 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72759546235 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58041958042 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.5237957272 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.8888888889 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8888888889 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.94444444444 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.366886199654 0.272083759551 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0950215923818 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.177808512452 0.0662205650399 269% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272828567268 0.162205337803 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.329220252422 0.0443174109184 743% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.