The reading and the lecture are both about the coal ash which contains harmful chemicals needs strict rules for disposing of. The author of the reading believes that they don't need any rules by providing three supporting details for the claims. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She thinks that the stricter rules will be essential by providing some evidence.
First of all, the article points out that the companies have already such cautionary method. The author provides an example where they use the liner to prevent leakage of coal ashes into the soil and waterways. The lecturer is challenged by this point. She says that the liner that the companies have now are not sufficient since some old systems don't have those liners and continue to contaminate the drinking water. Hence, the lecturer suggests that the old system needs to replace by using the liner.
Secondly, the author contends that the if the stricter rules are imposed, then the consumer would not buy the recycles material that uses coal ashes as they might think these coal ashes are too harmful and stop buying those products anymore. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She suggests that people will not stop buying those products instead they will be more cautious while handling those materials. The professor provides an example of a product that uses mercury. Even though mercury was harmful but people use the material that safely encompasses mercury. Hence, it is unlikely that people will stop buying recycled coal as products.
Finally, the author states that strict rules will result in additional cost. This will impact consumers by increasing the cost of electricity where people will be unhappy. The lecturer posits that it will well worth it if rules are made prevalent by providing an example of an analysis that was done. The lecturer says that the electricity bill would only be increased by 1% where people wouldn't mind as the cost will be divided into 15 billion people that make use of electricity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 172, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...uthor of the reading believes that they dont need any rules by providing three suppo...
^^^^
Line 1, column 246, 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.
...hree supporting details for the claims. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 3, column 306, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...t the liner that the companies have now are not sufficient since some old systems d...
^^^
Line 3, column 348, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...e not sufficient since some old systems dont have those liners and continue to conta...
^^^^
Line 7, column 389, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...ld only be increased by 1% where people wouldnt mind as the cost will be divided into 1...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 483, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on people that make use of electricity.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 12.0772626932 174% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1690.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 338.0 270.72406181 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.32010770405 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497041420118 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 513.0 419.366225166 122% => 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: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
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: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.8229885456 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.9473684211 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7894736842 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15789473684 7.06452816374 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.295310585103 0.272083759551 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0904007608979 0.0996497079465 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0944227998055 0.0662205650399 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183633924199 0.162205337803 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0687711140003 0.0443174109184 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.