handling and storing coal ash
TPO 42
Both the author and the lecturer discuss whether creating new regulations for handling and storing coal ash is necessary or not. The passage claims new regulations are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences. The professor, on the other hand, completely reject whatever mentioned in the reading through citing three reasons.
First, both the author and the professor talk about existing regulations. According to the passage, effective environmental regulations already exist. For example, companies that dispose of coal ash in disposal ponds or landfills use liner in every new pond or landfill they build. The lecturer, nevertheless, rejects the author's view and illustrates the idea that liner is using only in new lands, while companies pose significant damage to old lands. For example, coal ash contaminated drinking water that caused environmental damage.
Second of all, both the reading and the lecture discuss recycling coal ash. The author argues that if new stricter rule 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. However, the professor refutes this, saying that new regulations do not lead to a halt in buying the products. For example, government created new regulations about mercury that has become successful since 50 years ago.
Eventually, the passage and the lecture address the subject of cost. The passage goes on to mention that strict new regulations would result in an increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies. In contrast, the professor points out that power companies make 15 billion dollars and they pay the bill just one percent more than that in the past for cleaning environment that is very negligible.
All in all, the author maintains that it is unnecessary to take strict regulation for handling and storing coal ash, while the professor not only completely cast doubt on it but he also demonstrates that strict new regulation is essential for protecting environment.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, while, for example, in contrast, 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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1744.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 325.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36615384615 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80039557645 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547692307692 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 522.0 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.1754960753 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.0 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3125 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.625 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0668035789908 0.272083759551 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0244057934339 0.0996497079465 24% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.020252898622 0.0662205650399 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0434274407293 0.162205337803 27% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0143677667068 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: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.