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 new regulations for handling and storing coal ash induce negative consequences and provides three reasons for support. However, the professor expalins that strictier rules are needed and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that effective environmental regulations already exist. The professor refutes this point by saying that these regulations are not sufficient. He added that the regulation of using the liner is only used for the new pond or landfill the companies built. Therefore, the old landfills are not concerned and it would cause damage. For example, it could infiltrate and contaminate drinkable water. All in all, the usage of liner must be for both new and old ponds or landfills.
Second, the article states that creating new rules for storing and handling coal ash could have an impact on the recycling of coal ash into other porducts, which would make consumers concerned about these products as dangerous. However, the professor says that it is not necessary that would make consumers concerned. For instance, similar component as coal ash is mercury has a strict and specific regulations for handling it and this did not make consumers concerned about it.
Third, the reading claims that strict rules would have a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies. The professor says that it is it would lead to an increase in cost, but it is worth it. According to the professor, it would cost fifteen billion dollars; however, for one household there will be only one percent increase in the price. So, it is not a big price in order to protect our environment.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, third, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 17.0 30.3222958057 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1397.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 274.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09854014599 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6692209094 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518248175182 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 423.9 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => 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: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.3893996271 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.1333333333 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2666666667 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.103463614611 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0328317979869 0.0996497079465 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484848270729 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0675670409597 0.162205337803 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0522260489908 0.0443174109184 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.