The reading mainly talks about that the new regulations of coal ash are unnecessary. However, the listening challenges what are stated in the passage by providing three strong reasons.
Firstly, in the reading, it is said that effective environmental regulations already exist. In contrast, the listening holds a view that the regulations we have now are not sufficient. For example, the harmful chemicals from coal ash leaked into groundwater and contaminated drinking water. So we need stricter new rules to prevent environmental damage at all coal ash disposal sites.
Secondly, the passage asserts that creating too strict rules for storing and dealing with coal ash might discourage the recycling of it into other products. However, the professor maintains the opposite opinion that stricter rules do not mean that consumers will not use recycled coal ash products anymore. Take mercury as an example, it has been successfully and safely recycled for over 50 years, and it receives little concerns.
Finally, the author of the reading passage believes that strict new regulations would increase the cost of disposal and handling coal ash for the power companies. On the other hand, the professor disagrees it with the point that the result is worth the extra cost. To state it more clearly, the professor says that it would increase the average consumer’s electricity bill by only about one percent, which is acceptable to have a cleaner environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 166, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...a view that the regulations we have now are not sufficient. For example, the harmfu...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, second, secondly, so, for example, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1239.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 233.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31759656652 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90696013833 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84397515142 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.587982832618 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 377.1 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.5298374586 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.25 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4166666667 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.25 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.543002896365 0.272083759551 200% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.183529731189 0.0996497079465 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.130530748776 0.0662205650399 197% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.30442848162 0.162205337803 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0575639784042 0.0443174109184 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => 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: 13.58 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.