The article states that new regulation for coal power plants are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences and provides three different reasons for support. However, the professor explains that strict regulation should be applied and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that effective environmental regulations already exist. Companies, for example, use the liner-special material. The professor refutes this point by stating that it is not sufficient. She explains that it regulation are applied only to new plants. That means that old plants didn't have to use them. According to the professor, old plants create harmful damage to groundwater. That's why professor think we should apply strict regulation for the old plant too.
Second, the article claims that the regulation will increase the cost for plants and electricity for the population. However, the professor contends that point. She explains that it will increase but worth it. Implementation will cost around 15 billion dollars. He then explains that if you do simple math, you will find out that price increases for population only by 1 percent. That is not a big price for customers for such a big environmental change.
Third, the reading avers that regulation because it discourages the recycling if coal ash such as bricks, and people may stop buying the products. The lecture opposes this point by saying that people don't stop using recycling material. She provides the example of Mercury. Mercury is a hazardous material. According to the professor, despite strict regulation people have used and storage mercury for 50 years. THat's why people won't be afraid of buying products from the coal ash.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 301, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... new plants. That means that old plants didnt have to use them. According to the prof...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 402, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...s create harmful damage to groundwater. Thats why professor think we should apply str...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 201, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...pposes this point by saying that people dont stop using recycling material. She prov...
^^^^
Line 7, column 482, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d of buying products from the coal ash.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, third, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 15.0 30.3222958057 49% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1450.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35055350554 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73476299957 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531365313653 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => 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: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 21.2450331126 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.7093329899 49.2860985944 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 69.0476190476 110.228320801 63% => OK
Words per sentence: 12.9047619048 21.698381199 59% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 4.04761904762 7.06452816374 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.27373068433 328% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.35530012293 0.272083759551 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.095452410436 0.0996497079465 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0804714331718 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.214686134246 0.162205337803 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0568356708018 0.0443174109184 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.3 53.8541721854 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.86 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.498013245 65% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.