creation of new regulations for handling and storing of the power plants waste.
The passage and the talk both discuss the new restricted rules for the power plants that use coal as fuel to dispose their waste, coal ash. The author claims that new rules are not advantageous. The lecturer, however, refutes the author's assessment. She demonstrates three reasons to cast doubt on the claims made in the reading.
The first allegation of the passage against which the lecturer argues is that the required regulation for preserving the natural surronding already exists. In contrast, the professor highlights the fact that current rules are not sufficient. For instance, the liner that companies are using in places they dipose their garbage is not exerting in the old ponds, and it just has been added to the new places.
Second, according to the passage establishing new regulations would result in making problems to recycling procedure of the coal ash, because people will not trust to the products made of refined ash such as concrete and bricks; Although the speaker finds this idea debatable. She bolsters her opinion by saying example of mercury, that new restricted rules did not affect it's recycling procedure.
Lastly, the lecture contradicts this fallacy of the passage that the new regulation would trigger the cost rising of the electricity that brings unsatisfactory of the people, saying that it would not cause price rising more than one percent, that is worthy in return for the environment maintain.
Grammar and spelling errors:
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.
...ms that new rules are not advantageous. The lecturer, however, refutes the authors ...
^^^
Line 1, column 231, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ous. The lecturer, however, refutes the authors assessment. She demonstrates three reas...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 171, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sh, because people will not trust to the products made of refined ash such as con...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, lastly, second, so, for instance, in contrast, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1206.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 234.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15384615385 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91114542567 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64627586459 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594017094017 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 360.0 419.366225166 86% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.112329519 49.2860985944 165% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.6 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.214857096278 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0706514475273 0.0996497079465 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0669962155996 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118176421888 0.162205337803 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0392657594952 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.3 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.