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.
Increased Cost
Finally, strict new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies—perhaps as much as ten times the current costs. Power companies would be forced to increase the price of electricity, which would not be welcomed by the general public.
The article states that the new regulations regarding to the burning of the coal in power plants are unnecessary and this might have the negative consequences, and provides the three reasons in order to support the claim. However, the professor refutes this claim by stating the various reasons.
Firstly, the article states that the environmental regulations are already in exists as they use the inner special material in order to prevent coal ash components from leaking into the soil and polluting the environment. However, the professor refute this claim by stating that the old disposal sides result in the leak of the harmful that get mixed with the drinking water and resulting the water pollution.
Secondly, the article states that the provision of the strict rules and regulation will result in the discouragement of recycling of coal ash into other products such as concrete and bricks as well as results the buy of products. In contrary, the professor refute the claim by stating that the stricts rule will never result in the stop buying of products. She states that in the past, the presence of mercury in the high amount results the negative impact in the health, that's why the restriction has been done in the high use of the mercury in the different products but i donot result in the complete failure to sell the products as customer used to by these products regularly with concerning of the harmful effects.
Thirdly, the article claims that the new restriction rules will result in the increased of the cost in the disposal and handling for power companies that will cause power company to increase the price of electricity which will not welcome by public. Howerver, the professor refutes this claim by stating that the strict rule regulation will results the one percent increase in the price of the electricity use, so, the people will unhappy regarding to this result as they are more concern in health.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 473, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...ults the negative impact in the health, thats why the restriction has been done in th...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 342, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'result'
Suggestion: result
...ng that the strict rule regulation will results the one percent increase in the price o...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, well, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 30.3222958057 175% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1614.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 325.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96615384615 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57285971258 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446153846154 0.540411800872 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 492.3 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 36.0 21.2450331126 169% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.9710543638 49.2860985944 156% => OK
Chars per sentence: 179.333333333 110.228320801 163% => OK
Words per sentence: 36.1111111111 21.698381199 166% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.0 7.06452816374 170% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.148466806035 0.272083759551 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0695174715665 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0407362179108 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0997320032495 0.162205337803 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384349343533 0.0443174109184 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.0 13.3589403974 150% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.4 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 11.0289183223 147% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.14 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.4 10.498013245 156% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.