The both passage and lecture discuss three assumptions about a waste product called coal ash, which is has harmful chemicals that may have negative impact on environment. The author points out that delegate of power companies assert that new regulations around handling and storing coal ash will have negative results. However, the lecturer disagrees and brings three counterarguments.
To begin with, the article indicates that the environmental regulations exist. For instance, the companies should use liner in every new pond and landfill. In contrast, this point is challenged by the speaker by saying that that liner is not sufficient. In addition, it is only for new land fill and pond. Therefore, it can damage other old ones. Plus, it leaks to drink water and contaminated it. So, by applying it to all old and new pond, we can prevent all sites.
Furthermore, the text posits that creating rules for handling coal ash may affect customers tendency to buy relevant products such as concrete and other building materials from recycling coal ash. On the other hand, according to audio part, creating strict rules does not mean that wee will stop recycling these materials. We should look at how people respond and react for other recycled materials. For example, mercury is recycled for fifteen years and there are few concerns by product customers.
Finally, the reading section claims that power companies should increase electricity price due to these strict rules. Consequently, people would not be happy with that. In contrary, the lecturer rejects this idea and implies that the cost of implements such as tools and utensils will increase but household electricity will include one percent of this price. In fact, it is not too much in compare with other costs.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, furthermore, however, if, look, may, so, therefore, as to, for example, for instance, in addition, in contrast, in fact, such as, to begin with, 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: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1494.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16955017301 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65049644483 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.615916955017 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 441.0 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.2564202854 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.0 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0555555556 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5555555556 7.06452816374 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.479176655697 0.272083759551 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113475221427 0.0996497079465 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112068207398 0.0662205650399 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.242793539645 0.162205337803 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108064260236 0.0443174109184 244% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.