TPO-41 - Integrated Writing Task
Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash, a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the environment and suggest that the United States government should create new, much stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash.
However, representatives of power companies take the opposite view; they argue that new regulations are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences They use the following arguments to support their position.
Regulations Exist
First, power company representatives point out that effective environmental regulations already exist. For example, one very important regulation requires companies to use liner-special material that prevents coal ash components from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. Companies that dispose of coal ash in disposal ponds or landfills must use liner in every new pond or landfill they build.
Concerns About Recycling Coal Ash
Second, some analysts predict that creating very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products Currently, a large portion of coal ash generated by power plants is recycled: it is used, for example, in building materials such as concrete and bricks Recycling coal ash reduces the need to dispose of it in other ways and presents no environmental danger. However, if new, stricter rules are adopted for handling coal ash, consumers may become concerned that recycled coal ash products are just too dangerous, and may stop buying the products
Increased Cost
Finally, strict new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies. perhaps as much as ten times the current costs. Power companies would be forced to increase the price of electricity, which would not be welcomed by the general public.
The reading and lecture both discussed creating new regulations for handling and storing coal ashes. While the reading believes that it is unnecessary for the government to create new restrictions, the professor claims that current rules are not sufficient and there should be more restriction on storing and handling coal.
First, the reading claims that there is enough regulation and backs up its argument by illustrating that companies use liners. On the other hand, the professor believes that these rules are not enough owing to the evidence which companies should only use the liner for new land and fields and support her claim by illustrating the leaking of contaminating materials in water which did so harm to the rural living there.
Second, the reading suggests that if more regulations are created then concerns about recycling coal ashes will stem and these may conclude in dissuading people from the recycling of coal ash into other materials. nevertheless, the lecturer asserts that the reading didn't get the point and it is not a correct statement. Also, she gives the example of Mercury, a hazardous and dangerous material, that has so many restrictions on it but it has been over fifty years that still companies recycle it.
Ultimately, the reading alleged that creating new rules will result in a significant increase in costs of disposal and handling for the power companies. While the teacher explains that although it will increase the costs by fifty billion dollars, it is not a lot of money that each household user will experience the increased amount of 1 percent that is a subtle change in their payments.
To sum up, although the reading suggests that current rules are sufficient but the teacher will refute the writer idea by supporting her claims with much-elaborated information. And she is sure that some restrictions should be added.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 214, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Nevertheless
...cling of coal ash into other materials. nevertheless, the lecturer asserts that the reading ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 266, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
..., the lecturer asserts that the reading didnt get the point and it is not a correct s...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, still, then, while, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1570.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11400651466 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76728454336 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.527687296417 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.3010913239 49.2860985944 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.727272727 110.228320801 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.9090909091 21.698381199 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.18181818182 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.352584558418 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128891758371 0.0996497079465 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108532635594 0.0662205650399 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174556245694 0.162205337803 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0850688722277 0.0443174109184 192% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 53.8541721854 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 11.0289183223 114% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.