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
The lecturer challenges the topic proposed in the reading that representatives of power companies think new regulations have negative consequenses. And she presumes that new stricter regulation for coal ash is necessary.
First, the article supposes that effective environmental regulations already exists. However, the professor supports that the existed regulation for using of liner is not sufficient. because the existed rules only include new ponds or landfills and there are some old disposal ponds and landfills that the components of coal ash leak into the ground water and comtaminate the drinking water. Thus, it is necessary to create a new strict rule for coal ash to prevent the environmental damage.
Second, the essay indicates that creating very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. But the lecturer argues that new rules would not gender customers stop using recycled coal ash. because for another example, mercury, which is also hazardous and restricted by some regulations, have been recycled safely for 50 years, customers would not be concerned that recycled coal ash is dangerous.
Third, the passage mentions that strict new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for hte power companies. Nevertheless, the professor points out that the costs are well worthy. Though the expenses for companies to implementing the rule are about 15 billion dollars, there is only 1 percent increment of the bill for household electricity, which is not considerably expensive to exchange a cleaner environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 184, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Because
...n for using of liner is not sufficient. because the existed rules only include new pond...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 255, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Because
...customers stop using recycled coal ash. because for another example, mercury, which is ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, third, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 17.0 30.3222958057 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1386.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 253.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47826086957 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98822939669 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92219188696 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557312252964 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 424.8 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.703493693 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.5 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0833333333 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.16666666667 7.06452816374 87% => 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 : 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: 0.115345182675 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0475272446773 0.0996497079465 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0406445721087 0.0662205650399 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0728127172111 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0395145881104 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.