The reading is about coal ash and its harmful damages on environments. Its states tree reasons of support provided by representatives of power companies. Conversely, in the lecture the professor hold a totally different views that there should be definitely strict rules about for handling and storing ash and point to inaccuracies in each of the author's reasons.
First of all, the article claims that there is an effective existing regulations about environments. The professor refutes this point by saying that the existing rules are not sufficient. According to her, the current regulations is about using liner-special material for preventing toxic material from leaking into ground water for just new landfill builds. However, the existing and old lands already polluting ground water by the harmful chemicals from coal ash. As a result, new regulations should be established for both old and new landfill.
Secondly, the reading asserts that creation of strict rules lead to discourage recycling of coal ash into other products. However, the professor says new strict rules doesn’t necessary mean stop recycling. She provided an example with similar situation. There is established regulations on Mercury, the material with potential harmful effects, which exist about 50 years. After all years, it receives little concerns from customers.
Third, the article posits that new regulations will increase the disposal and handling costs for power companies. The professor on the other hand explains that although costs will increase but it worth. As she said, 1 percent of add price to consumer’s electricity bill in comparison to hole costs is totally acceptable to have a cleaner environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 70, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'regulation'?
Suggestion: regulation
...ims that there is an effective existing regulations about environments. The professor refut...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, after all, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => 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: 1456.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 264.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51515151515 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03089032464 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93852494184 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564393939394 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 431.1 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.6138446222 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.0 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5625 7.06452816374 107% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.441098414622 0.272083759551 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124797775503 0.0996497079465 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0848418830423 0.0662205650399 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.245987721369 0.162205337803 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.061199683955 0.0443174109184 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.44 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.