The reading passage states that so-called coal ash material have detrimental effect on the environment and provides three main points in support. However, the professor's lecture belives that the reading aguments are not convincing and expresses three distinc reasons to underscore her standpoint.
First, the passage mentions that existed rugulation on company are adequate. Nonetheless, the lecturer rebuts this point. She asserts that liner coating is not sufficient. Indeed, the solution is only appropriate for new land field and harmful contamination may would have be seen in water beneath the old land field.
Second, the reading states that according to the analysts severe regulation for storage and handling of coal ash may degrade recycling of coal ash into other products. Nevertheless, the professor repudiates this poin by providing an example of other materials. She says that in the past other materials such as mercury was in the same consideration and by the time passes, people understood that recycling process would not threat humans.
Third, the article avers that new rule would increase costs dramatically. However, the professor in the listening part rejects this point. She explains that increased cost is well worth. The cost is around 50 billion dollars and consumer would budget only 1 percent of the price of electricity. This amount of money is worth to pay for having clear and fresh environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 274, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...nd harmful contamination may would have be seen in water beneath the old land fiel...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, third, well, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1215.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 225.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87298334621 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75868639343 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.631111111111 0.540411800872 117% => OK
syllable_count: 359.1 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.3507869562 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.7857142857 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0714285714 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07142857143 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.322733877011 0.272083759551 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0853215086221 0.0996497079465 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105523171024 0.0662205650399 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167567315924 0.162205337803 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0777092113614 0.0443174109184 175% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.74 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.62 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.