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.
Recently, there has been a ton of debate on much stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ashes. More sepecifically, in regard to the passage, the writer puts forth with different reasons in order to take this regualtion ideas to challange. In the listening on the other hand, the lecturer is quick to point out that there are some serious flaws in the writer's claims and addresses, in detail, the trouble with each point made in the reading text.
First, the author of the article states that environmental regulations already exist and goes to with the example of the use of liner-special materials. Some porfessionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. In the listening for instance, the professor states although there are some regulations, they are not sufficient. She goes on to say that using liner-special materials is only obligatory for the new factories and it is not applicable for already-exist ones and that's why the disposal of coal ashes has the risk of water pollution.
Furthermore, on group of scholars, represented by the writer, thinks that more stricting rules may have influence on cosumers and make them concern. This may conclude to stoppage of buying the recycled products. Of course, though, not all experts in the field believe this is accurate. Again, the speaker addresses this point when she points out mercury as an example. She says that people did not stop buying mercury porducts which were safe, however, mercury was known as a dangerous material.
Finally, the author brings his argument to a close by suggesting that new regulations would increase power companies cost. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with this claim by contending that results of such regulation is worthable than the cost and also the increasing would be around one percent for the public user.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 502, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...t applicable for already-exist ones and thats why the disposal of coal ashes has the ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, as to, for instance, of course, in regard to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09477124183 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79708973147 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601307189542 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 469.8 419.366225166 112% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2975999742 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.357142857 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8571428571 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.57142857143 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0690727718621 0.272083759551 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0222552430759 0.0996497079465 22% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0224901892368 0.0662205650399 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0384446273198 0.162205337803 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0141583833731 0.0443174109184 32% => 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: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.