The author of the reading passage and the professor both discuss that whether or not the government should make much stricter rules for companies to hand and store coal ash. The author is against the idea by explaining three theories. However, the professor thinks that the author's reasons contain some defects.
First of all, the author claims that the companies already have the regulations right now. The government requires companies to use liner-special material if companies need to dispose the coal ash in new disposal ponds or landfills. However, the professor disagrees. She indicates that the current law is lack of sufficient of using liner, because the law is only for the new ponds and landfill. But the old disposal still pollutes the environment such as polluting groundwater and people will drink the polluting water.
In addition, the author states that if the government created strict rules, it would make people afraid buy the products of recycling of coal ash. On the contrary, the professor refutes the author's idea by using the mercury as an example. She said the mercury already been subjected a long time to strict regulation for 50 years. People still consume the mercury products with any concern.
Finally, the author raises the point that the company will cost more due to new regulation. And it will force them to increase the electricity fee. On the other hand, the professor asserts that the resulting of the environment is worth it. And analyze shows that the cost of the implement is 15 billion dollar. And it only takes 1% of the companies profits.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 71, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...age and the professor both discuss that whether or not the government should make much stricte...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 98, Rule ID: I_AFRAID[9]
Message: The adjective afraid is used with 'to': 'afraid to buy'.
Suggestion: afraid to buy
...ated strict rules, it would make people afraid buy the products of recycling of coal ash. ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 191, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...the contrary, the professor refutes the authors idea by using the mercury as an example...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, so, still, in addition, such as, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
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: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1328.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01132075472 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57175832928 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543396226415 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 393.3 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.5953689263 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.1176470588 110.228320801 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5882352941 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76470588235 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.343915369285 0.272083759551 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0927493979344 0.0996497079465 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.102228991618 0.0662205650399 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19319587586 0.162205337803 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0688928917835 0.0443174109184 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 13.3589403974 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.