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 claims that new regulations for handling and stopping coal cash of factories and industrial of power are can not be a useful solution and there would be three issues about this hypothesis. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas dubious and presents some evidence to refute them all.
The author argues that every power company have a regulation for control of coal cash and they should use liner for their new landfills to do not let coal cash to leak into the soil. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that it is not necessary for every landfill and pond that the factories build use an especial liner because adding several liner for all of them is sufficient and they will prevent contaminating of area from leaking harmful chemical substances by coal burning by new sites more better.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that by building new reserviers for managing coal ash may effects on recycling of them into other products and it will cause to decrease of their demands by people who needs them because they will concern about the health of those products.On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that other material like mercary is getting from recycling these coal ash about 50 years and there is no dangerous in them.
Finally, the reading asserts that power companies have to increase the price of electricity that they produce to component their costs on creating new regulations. In contrast, the speaker dismiss this issue due to the fact that it is true that having new method for decreasing effects of coal ash on environment will be too expensive but the result have well worth but they have to put their price just 1 percent more than before that it does not big price to pay.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 343, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun liner seems to be countable; consider using: 'several liners'.
Suggestion: several liners
...ld use an especial liner because adding several liner for all of them is sufficient and they ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 501, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'better' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: better
...substances by coal burning by new sites more better. Furthermore, the reading passage hold...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 174, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'decreasing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'cause' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: decreasing
...m into other products and it will cause to decrease of their demands by people who needs th...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 288, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: On
...cern about the health of those products.On the contrary, the professor underlines ...
^^
Line 4, column 365, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...expensive but the result have well worth but they have to put their price just 1 ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, furthermore, however, may, so, well, in contrast, it is true, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1445.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80066445183 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44781293609 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551495016611 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 440.1 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 13.0662251656 54% => 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: 43.0 21.2450331126 202% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 114.80506993 49.2860985944 233% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 206.428571429 110.228320801 187% => OK
Words per sentence: 43.0 21.698381199 198% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.7142857143 7.06452816374 208% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.178527157486 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0785753139165 0.0996497079465 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.044271770062 0.0662205650399 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103757742609 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0294158629192 0.0443174109184 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 22.7 13.3589403974 170% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.29 53.8541721854 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.9 11.0289183223 171% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.45 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.23 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 19.2 10.498013245 183% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.2008830022 170% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.