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.
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.
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 reading passage introduces three reasons that arguing whether government should create new, strict regulations for handling and storing coal ash. The speaker in the listening, however, believes none of the three reasons mentioned in the reading is convincing.
In the first place, the reading says that the effective environment regulation already exist, so it doesn't need to create a new regulation. However, the listening indicates that the existed regulation--to use liner, is not enough at all. Since the liner can be used only on new land field or ponds, this regulation can be done under limited situations. Besides, it will cause damage definitely, and release harmful chemical lead to soil, contaminating the environment eventually.
In the second place, the reading implies that setting a new regulation will increase people's concern toward the recycled coal ash products. The lecturer however asserts that people will not have such reaction toward the recycled coal ash products. The lecturer uses one example to illustrate this statement. Mercury, such as, under a strict regulation for a very long time, because it has been safely preserved, so people do not have as much concern as the reading passage considered.
Lastly, the reading passage also put forth the fact that strict regulation would result in a significant increase in costs for the power companies. Nonetheless, the speaker points out the fact that it will cost only 50 billion dollars, which sounds a big costs, however, only increase average 1% in every power companies.
Thus, little is related to anything about the reasons mentioned in the reading.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they are nowadays.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they are nowadays.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.70
- 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 th90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 101, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
...ronment regulation already exist, so it doesnt need to create a new regulation. Howeve...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, however, if, lastly, nonetheless, second, so, thus, such as, in the first place, in the second place
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: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1395.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36538461538 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72143311967 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584615384615 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 422.1 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => 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: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.0491833592 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.307692308 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.38461538462 7.06452816374 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.11792321759 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0417803846122 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0394946408143 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0563304744271 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0314950052679 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.