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.
The reading and the lecture are both about regulations for handling and storing coal ash. While the author of the reading presents three arguments by power companies' representatives opposing introducing new regulations, the lecture challenges each claim made in the article.
To begin with, according to power company representatives, regulations already exist. They argue that companies are required to use specific materials to prevent coal ash from leaking into the soil. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that the existed regulations are not sufficient to prevent reduce harmful effects of coal ash. Additionally, she says that only the new sites are forced to use liner-special materials, therefore, the chances of harmful materials to leak into water is still exist.
Secondly, the writer states that some analysts suggest that tough regulations for storing and handling coal ash might affect the recycling of coal ash into other products. In the article, it is said these regulations might discourage public opinion from using recycled coal ash products. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that there are other materials that have been regulated under strict rules and people still use its products. She elaborates on this by bringing up the example of mercury.
Finally, the author mentions the concerns of raising the price of the electricity of the strict regulations were applied. On the other hand, the lecturer position is that even if the cost increased, the safety consequences are well worth it. She notes that if we look at the general cost we would consider it a huge number, 50 billion, but on the small scale it would just increase 1% for the consumer.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, while, to begin with, on the other hand
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 : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1457.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27898550725 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80164785954 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572463768116 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 447.3 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.0762665783 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.071428571 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7142857143 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.42857142857 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.156924945965 0.272083759551 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0550959226019 0.0996497079465 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0522900706881 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.088599536366 0.162205337803 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0414493413654 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.