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 passage and lecture have conflicting opinions about wether or not new arrangement and policies are essential for handling and storing coal ash. The article strongly postulates that experienced people who works in power companies argued that new rules and policies are unnecessary and could lead to bad consequences. On the other hand, the listening adamantly delinates that new strict rules and polices have to declared by the government for handling and storing coal ash.
First and foremost, according to the author of the exerpt, power companies are using a special material liner in order protect the underground water from being exposed to coal ash. Also, these companies persist that regulation exists. Nonetheless, the lecture offsets these points by declaring that regulations such as, using liner is not an effective way to protect the environment from coal ash. furthermore, this material has to be used when new pond is built in order to prevent the oil from the leaking to the soil and pollute the underground water.
The professor in lecture further points out that these new arrangement for handling and storing coal for sure, will not discourage companies from storing coal ash. For instance, a company called "Mercury" is subjected to strict rules for 50 years and still recycling coal ash. These claims refute the writer implication of how these strict rules will effect individuals and companies from recycling coal ash.
The article lastly asserts that strict regulation would rise the costs for power company, thereby increasing the electricity bill ten times. The speaker in the lecture counters these points by insisting that establishing the new regulation will cost the government 50 billion , but it's worthwhile. However, the electricity bill will not increase that much only 1%.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 399, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Furthermore
... protect the environment from coal ash. furthermore, this material has to be used when new ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 362, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[6]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
...lication of how these strict rules will effect individuals and companies from recyclin...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 276, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...tion will cost the government 50 billion , but its worthwhile. However, the electr...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, lastly, nonetheless, so, still, while, as to, for instance, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1548.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35640138408 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80127370384 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519031141869 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 463.5 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => 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: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.2215500347 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.076923077 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2307692308 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.69230769231 7.06452816374 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.135468410251 0.272083759551 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0539384367833 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0412807382657 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0820344446623 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0417578811048 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.