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 representatives of power companies disagree that the new regulations will be successful because of three reasons, which is that current regulations already existed, citizens will not recycle the coal ash and they will increase the cost. However, the woman in the dialogue did not agree the points listed in the article.
Firstly, although liner is useful to prevent coal ash, it is not sufficient for all situations mentioned by the woman. Because the liners can only be used in new landfills or ponds. In other words, old ponds or landfills will still damage the ground water and the environment. As a result, she argue that they need strict regulations.
Secondly, consumers may not stop recycling based on previous practices cited by the woman. For instance, one material which damaged the environment was safely recycled and stored after some strict regulations announced. Besides, consumers had few concerns on the material. Similarly, the woman concluded that it will not be rejected by consumers.
Finally, though the cost will rise, it is worth for power companies because it will bring 15 billion profits. Another concern on the price of electricity is also impossible, because the price only increase 1 percent for the general public.
In conclusion, the woman argue that the government should create much stricter regulations to handle coal ash.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 295, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...r and the environment. As a result, she argue that they need strict regulations. ...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 225, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...e price only increase 1 percent for the general public. In conclusion, the woman argue t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, finally, first, firstly, however, may, second, secondly, similarly, so, still, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
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: 1165.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 219.0 270.72406181 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3196347032 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.84690116678 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75196656759 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.616438356164 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 346.5 419.366225166 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.7127695629 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.6153846154 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8461538462 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.5384615385 7.06452816374 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111282922596 0.272083759551 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0374291942375 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0264454369445 0.0662205650399 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0642816125472 0.162205337803 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0180415234192 0.0443174109184 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.