TPO 41 - integrated writing
Environmentalists suggest the US government should create new, much more strict regulations for handling and storing coal ash, which are harmful chemicals produced by power plants. However, this was disputed by the representatives of the power companies for three reasons. The lecturer discusses these reasons and concludes that these reasons are not convincing.
First, the representatives there already exits some effective environmental regulations. However, the lecturer points out that these existed regulations are not being sufficient enough because these regulations only require power companies to use liner-special material to prevent coal ash leaking in the new landfills, but there are many old landfills need to use liner too. Therefore a new regulation is necessary.
The second reason the representatives mentioned is that more strict rules may discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products because customers may consider these products dangerous. The lecturer argues that this is not the case by giving an example of the recycling product of mercury. Mercury material is recycled into other products with strict regulations for many years, but consumers never consider these products dangerous.
The representatives also worry about the new regulations will bring a significant increment of disposal and handling costs of the power companies. The lecturer admits that the handling cost will increase with more strict regulations. The cost increment will be approximately 50 billion for one power company every year. It seems like a considerable expense, but with a little bit 1% of electricity price increment, this extra cost will be covered.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 378, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ny old landfills need to use liner too. Therefore a new regulation is necessary. The s...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 235, 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.
... increase with more strict regulations. The cost increment will be approximately 50...
^^^
Line 7, column 370, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
...like a considerable expense, but with a little bit 1% of electricity price increment, this...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1428.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.66666666667 5.08290768461 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09468859591 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563492063492 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 445.5 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.1761449428 49.2860985944 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.846153846 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3846153846 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.38461538462 7.06452816374 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.482988260573 0.272083759551 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.157891964119 0.0996497079465 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118414437793 0.0662205650399 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.285623517498 0.162205337803 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0708253136613 0.0443174109184 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 53.8541721854 65% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.2367328918 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.