n the lecture, the professor makes a series of points that cast doubt on all the barguments presented in the reading passage about no need to have sricter regulations for handling coal ash. The author states power companies believe they are not nessecary and give three reasons to support their view. However the professor refutes all of them and says definitely stricter rules are needed.
First of all, the existed regulations like using liners are not sufficient and only applied for new field or new pond not old one.Thus the older sites with significant damage are free from this rules.So most of the contamination is trough this site which do not use liner and are old.
Moreover, the professor opposes with the second reason of support of power company and their concern about recucling coal ash about reducing use of them. She believes having more knowledge about the hazard of coal ash not nessecarily means people wont use recycle one.She gives the example of mercury and its safely recycling during 50 years and states eventhough it is an hazardous metal, due to using safe recycling method people used them for many years and this is in contrary of the power companis'claim.
Lastly, she states the increase of cost of electricity would be true but the result is wellworth to extra cost.In fact increase in 15 billion dollar in cost per household only would be 1 percent increase in the electricity cost for every houshole. So the increase is reasonable for people and acceptable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: N
n the lecture, the professor makes a seri...
^
Line 1, column 302, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ve three reasons to support their view. However the professor refutes all of them and s...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 130, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Thus
...d for new field or new pond not old one.Thus the older sites with significant damage...
^^^^
Line 2, column 130, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...d for new field or new pond not old one.Thus the older sites with significant damage...
^^^^
Line 2, column 189, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...s with significant damage are free from this rules.So most of the contamination is t...
^^^^
Line 2, column 200, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: So
...ificant damage are free from this rules.So most of the contamination is trough thi...
^^
Line 3, column 268, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: She
...arily means people wont use recycle one.She gives the example of mercury and its sa...
^^^
Line 3, column 370, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...ng 50 years and states eventhough it is an hazardous metal, due to using safe recy...
^^
Line 4, column 111, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: In
...t the result is wellworth to extra cost.In fact increase in 15 billion dollar in c...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, so, thus, well, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 12.0772626932 17% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1242.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 253.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90909090909 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98822939669 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53954953004 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.616600790514 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 393.3 419.366225166 94% => 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: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 21.2450331126 146% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 96.7734952092 49.2860985944 196% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.25 110.228320801 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.625 21.698381199 146% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0 7.06452816374 156% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.375755396465 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144186991813 0.0996497079465 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0754191513018 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193967580295 0.162205337803 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0606957287312 0.0443174109184 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 13.3589403974 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.0289183223 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.79 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.498013245 137% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.