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
The reading and the lecture are both about coal ash, which is a waste product after coal burning.The author of the reading believes that there are already strict rules about disposal of coal ash.The lecturer, however, argues that all the rules are insufficient and need to be modified.
First of all, the author points out that strict regulation already exist which includes the use of liners in coal ash disposal areas like ponds and landfill. The lecturer challenges this point. She says while liners are made only in new landfills and ponds, old once are yet to be considered. She also mentions that harmful coal ash leaches from these old disposal areas and reaches ground water. Thus, a strict rule should be implemented.
Secondly, the author argues that if new regulations are imposed, people will be suspicious about the dangers of coal tar recycled products and will not be buying any of its products. The lecture rebuts this argument by saying that this is a misconception. She further illustrates this argument by putting forward the example of mercury byproducts. She says consumers are not concerned about the mercurial by product even though a strict rule is there for its manufacturing and disposal.
Thirdly, the author mentions that new regulation will increase the disposal and handling cost of power companies which in turn results in the increase of electricity cost of general public, which will not be acceptable. The author, on the other hand, feels that there is only just one percent increase in the cost on companies. She posits that even if there is an increase in cost, it worth for safer and cleaner environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 98, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...h is a waste product after coal burning.The author of the reading believes that the...
^^^
Line 1, column 196, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...strict rules about disposal of coal ash.The lecturer, however, argues that all the ...
^^^
Line 1, column 196, 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.
...strict rules about disposal of coal ash.The lecturer, however, argues that all the ...
^^^
Line 7, column 175, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... in the increase of electricity cost of general public, which will not be acceptable. The auth...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, while, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1378.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01090909091 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58988241221 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523636363636 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 415.8 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.0231425986 49.2860985944 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.0 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1538461538 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.69230769231 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => 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: 0.175270473866 0.272083759551 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0538971507097 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0662921587063 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1150635264 0.162205337803 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0753853281694 0.0443174109184 170% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => 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.