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 reading and the lecture are both discussing the necessity of stricter rules to control the harmful effects of coal ash on the environment. The author of the reading presents some reasons to show that it is not essential to recruit new strict regulations. The lecturer, however, states that there must be definitely stricter rules in the storing and handling process of coal ash.
First of all, the author contends that strict and efficient regulations already exist and there is no need to define stricter rules to prevent the harmful effects of the coal ash. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that the existing regulations only work for the new land fields and ponds and there are no regulations to prevent the old ponds from poisoning the environment. She mentions that the old ponds have shown some damages to the water which resulted in venomous drinking water.
Secondly, the reading passage holds the view that adopting strict regulations for storing coal ash and starting to recycle these materials, customers will not be willing to buy the products and it results in fewer demands. The lecturer debuts this argument. She accentuates the fact that referring to other recycled materials, such as Mercury, which was really perilous, people were still interested in buying the recycled products, and hence, there will not be a significant shortage in the demands for the products.
Finally, the passage alleges that adopting stricter regulations results in higher costs and it is not an effective choice for the power companies. On the other hand, the lecturer insists that it is true that there will be an increase in the costs and the prices will skyrocket by about 50 billion dollars. However, higher costs result in well-worthy products and additionally, this increment only causes an average rise of about 1 percent in each company's expenses which is not a very big deal in order to have a cleaner environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 260, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...tial to recruit new strict regulations. The lecturer, however, states that there mu...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, hence, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, still, well, such as, first of all, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1616.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 321.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03426791277 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65158632258 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504672897196 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 487.8 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.5391444532 49.2860985944 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.666666667 110.228320801 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.75 21.698381199 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.3333333333 7.06452816374 175% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.134573735529 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0516787313627 0.0996497079465 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0495110205005 0.0662205650399 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0830275585034 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0363683578409 0.0443174109184 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.3589403974 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.