tpo 41
The topic of the article as well as the lecture is the coal ash, which is a waste material that is produced when power plants burn coal; although environmentalists think that the United States should pass stricter regulations for handling and storing it, representetives of power plant companies explain some evidence that new regulations are dispensible. In contrast, the lecturer provides a number of counterarguments in the rejection of these theories.
Initially, the author states that some regulations exist now that inhibit the coal ash to leak into soil and control the companies to use a liner-material and dispose the waste in ponds and landfills. However, the lecturer clarifies that these regulations are used just when a new power plant company is establishing. Nevertheless, there is not such a reguation for old power plants to force them to dispose their wastes in ponds and landfills, so this materials from old power plants could leak to ground water and contaminate it.
Second, the representetives assert that a new regulation may cause a decline in recyle of the coal ash in forms of bricks and concrete. Yet again, the lecturer underscores that the new rules have little to do with recyle of this material. For instance, in there is very strict rules for the mercury's disposal, that did not affect its recycle.
The final point of disagreements between the reading and the listening passage is costs. The writer believes that strict rules may have some costs to be performed by companies and may cause an increase in the price of the electricity. On the other hand, the speaker explains that the effects of these new regulatons worth the cost. Moreover, the cost for power plant companies is about 50 billion dollars, whereas for people it costs about just one percent higher than past, and it definitely worth the cleaner environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 449, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...their wastes in ponds and landfills, so this materials from old power plants could l...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, well, whereas, as for, for instance, in contrast, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06168831169 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90813955629 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542207792208 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 477.0 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.7681710195 49.2860985944 150% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.916666667 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6666666667 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0833333333 7.06452816374 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.494459980588 0.272083759551 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.155169397228 0.0996497079465 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118918871917 0.0662205650399 180% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.286946632772 0.162205337803 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0720514107279 0.0443174109184 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 13.3589403974 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 10.7273730684 186% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.