The passage and lecture are arguing over the question whether new strict rules should be established for coal ash. The passage author lists out some reason that new strict rules are unnecessary. In contrast, the lecturer questions this view.
First, based on the passage, the companies use liner for new ponds or landfills. On the other hand, the lecturer believes that liner are just used for new ponds and landfills. In this respect,in the old ponds and landfills the coal ash can leak to ground and contaminate the ground water. Therefore, there is no doubt that the new strict rules are required for using line not only in new ponds but also in old ones.
Second, the passage author mentions that the new strict rules cuase that people do not use the recylced material which are made of coal ash. The lecturer, however, refuses this argument and she states mercury as a dangerous material. She points out that the mercury has a strict rule for handling for long time, 50 years while people use these materials easily and without any concerns. Hence, strict rules are unlikely to change people decision for using the recycled materials from coal ash.
Third, the author beilieves that the new strict rules will increase the power companies cost, as a result, these companies will increase the price of electricity. Nevertheless, the lecturer challenges it and she states that, although the new rules will impose a 15 bilion dollars extra cost to companies, companies are able to compensate this cost by increasing one percent the house electricity price. In result, the people should pay a small cost for conserving environment.
All in all, the passage mentions some critics for establishing new strict rules for handling and storing coal ash. In contrast, the lecturer casts doubts these reasons.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 42, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
...he passage and lecture are arguing over the question whether new strict rules should be established ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 192, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , in
...new ponds and landfills. In this respect,in the old ponds and landfills the coal as...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, third, while, in contrast, no doubt, as a result, on the other hand
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 : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1515.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03322259136 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46691555258 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508305647841 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 452.7 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.7177140177 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.6875 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8125 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.625 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.41064891147 0.272083759551 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.146664276112 0.0996497079465 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0905832406217 0.0662205650399 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238353656941 0.162205337803 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0429508570361 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => 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.