TPO 41- Integrated writing
Both sources discuss the different aspects of making new confined laws for coal ash storage. Whereas the author states that it is not vital to have new narrow guidelines, the lecturer argues that we need to set finite rules. This piece of ensuing paragraphs summaries how the speaker refutes the points mentioned by the writer.
First of all, the writer says that effective rules for protecting the environment has existed today and we do not need the new one. On the contrary, the speaker states that these laws are not adequate to save all types of arias which utilize for coral ash storing. She goes on to states that, old lands are not reserved well and dangerous compounds emit and mix with underground water. Therefore, regulations must save both new and earlier areas.
Secondly, the writer asserts that more principles for recycling this material will reduce the willingness of customers. Conversely, the professor disagrees with this idea. She says that another hazardous substance, for example, mercury has been more than 50 years that present under strict regulation. Nevertheless, people have bought the recycled materials of it without any concern.
Finally, the writer says that the new mechanism will raise the concerns in buyers and consequently, the expense of electricity will go up. Conversely, the lecturer makes the point that the costs might boost, but the result will improve too. For example, it can cause energy production cost rise to 50 billion dollars. Although, It leads to an average increase cost of 1 percent cost for the consumers which it is not a remarkable cost for a healthier and environment.
In conclusion, although the author and the lecturer are both speaking the various aspects of the ash coal storage, the person effectively disputes the three main point made in the passage.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, conversely, finally, first, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, whereas, for example, in conclusion, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1543.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 298.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17785234899 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88242532407 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.597315436242 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 459.0 419.366225166 109% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.8609492561 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.866666667 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8666666667 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.3333333333 7.06452816374 160% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265761332486 0.272083759551 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.075252343753 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0471129308028 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132260572765 0.162205337803 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0195982367085 0.0443174109184 44% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.