The reading and the lecture both contradict each other, in terms of regulation for handling and storing coal ash. The author of the article states that the government's strict rules for coal ash are not necessary and might have negative consequences. However, the lecturer casts doubt about the claim mentions in the article and refutes all the theories explains in the article. He says that the idea is not effective.
First of all, according to the reading, existed regulations on the company are adequate. On the contrary, the speaker negates the arguments presented in the passage. Furthermore, he discusses that based on the current rules, liners are only used for building new ponds and lands which are not sufficient. Chemicals from the old lakes and land are contaminated to the drinking water. Thus, it is required to follow strict new rules for new as well as old premises.
Secondly, the author posits that consumers would stop buying these products if they have found it dangerous. Although the lecturer refutes this by asserting that there are many other products such as Mercury, which is also dangerous material and companies do follow strict rules for their handling and storage. However, consumers never stopped buying the material like mercury. Thus, it would not affect much with strict regulations.
Finally, it is mentioned in the article that new rules would dramatically raise the price of electricity which may not be good for the general public. On the other hand, the speaker believes that analyst has found that new rules have increased around 15 billion dollars which means consumers would pay just one percent of the increase in their bill and that is not much cost for having a clean environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 136, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ectricity which may not be good for the general public. On the other hand, the speaker believe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus, well, such as, as well as, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
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: 1445.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05244755245 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5466477838 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566433566434 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.3917763652 49.2860985944 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.3333333333 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0666666667 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4 7.06452816374 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.405892105126 0.272083759551 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112501102852 0.0996497079465 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0842782231411 0.0662205650399 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.214919004783 0.162205337803 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0411079627421 0.0443174109184 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.