The reading presents arguments from power companies that believe stricter environmental regulations are not necessary for coal ash. The professor, however, thinks that there should be stricter regulations because current regulations are not sufficient. She refutes each argument in the passage and explains the reason.
First, the reading states that we already have effective regulations and states using liner is compulsory in every new disposal ponds and landfills as an example. But the professor explains that this rule is only applies to new ponds and landfills which is not adequate and should include old disposal sites as well.
Second, the reading concerns that new rules might discourage recycling of coal ash and results in consumers stop buying coal ash recycled products. The professor opposes this claim and says that it does not necessarily leads to purchase halt by customers. She gives Mercury as an example which government have imposed strict regulations on it but people still bought the products.
Third, The professor explains that that this regulations completely worth the cost because it will protect public health. She also mentions that although implementing these regulations cost about 50 million dollars, the customers' billing would increase only one percent overall.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 220, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'lead'
Suggestion: lead
...m and says that it does not necessarily leads to purchase halt by customers. She give...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 31, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
...ducts. Third, The professor explains that that this regulations completely worth the c...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 41, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...Third, The professor explains that that this regulations completely worth the cost b...
^^^^
Line 7, column 145, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ct public health. She also mentions that although implementing these regulations ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, second, so, still, third, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 30.3222958057 33% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1109.0 1373.03311258 81% => OK
No of words: 199.0 270.72406181 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.57286432161 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75589349951 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67851923482 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.633165829146 0.540411800872 117% => OK
syllable_count: 325.8 419.366225166 78% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 27.4337383526 49.2860985944 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 110.9 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.7 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.391883097381 0.272083759551 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140559595184 0.0996497079465 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.141394185793 0.0662205650399 214% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215331606099 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0880588478667 0.0443174109184 199% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.2367328918 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.