summaries the points made in the lecture.
The reading and the lecture are both about coal ash which is produced from burning coal and contains harmful chemicals that are dangerous for the environment. The author of reading feels that creating new regulations for handling and storing coal ash is not required and in fact, might have adverse implications. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that more stringent rules should be set up for controlling and storing coal ash and presents 3 strong reasons.
To begin with, the author argues that the power company representatives note that effectual environmental regulations already exist. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that these rules are insufficient. These regulations exist only for new land fields and not require for old ones which actually harm the environment more. For example, harmful chemicals leaked into groundwater so definitely polluted consuming water. Therefore more rigorous new regulations should prevent damages in all aspects of coal ash disposal sites.
Secondly, the writer mentions that some analysts anticipate that creating strict new regulations about holding ash coal might disappoint the recycling of coal ash into other products. The lecturer elaborates on this by bringing up the point that creating new rules doesn’t mean that consumers won’t buy these products. For example about mercury, it’s been safely and favorably recycled over 50 years with trivial concerns.
Finally, the author posits that rigid new regulations might result in a considerable raising in disposal and handling cost for the power company. In contrast, the lecturer notes that the cost estimates 50 billion dollars which is a lot but it would be an increase in electricity bill about one percent which is not a great deal. So it’s worth the extra cost of having a cleaner environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 314, 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.
... fact, might have adverse implications. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 2, column 432, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...so definitely polluted consuming water. Therefore more rigorous new regulations should pr...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, however, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, in contrast, in fact, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1574.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33559322034 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75860982771 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569491525424 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 419.366225166 112% => 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: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.897170812 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.933333333 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6666666667 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.082505641439 0.272083759551 30% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0373590542804 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0789936074727 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0510683076011 0.162205337803 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0358689506643 0.0443174109184 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => 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: 13.69 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.