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 article introduces coal ash, a waste product of coal burning, and the potential risks it poses on the environment. Because of its possible hazardous effects, environmentalists proposed legislation of new stricter rules regarding handling and disposal of coal ash. On the other hand, power companies oppose this request because of several reasons. The professor refutes each of their reasons by logical and rational arguments.
Firstly, the power companies claim that regulations regarding this matter already exists. For instance, there are laws that requires companies to use linar when disposing of coal ash, so as to prevent the leaking of the noxious material. However, according to the professor, these regulations are not ample. Mainly because they force the use of linar only for new landfills. There are several older ponds and landfills that have been polluted. For example, in one site, the toxic chemicals seeped into the ground water and subsequently, contaminated the drinking water. Hence, the already existing laws don't adequately ensure safe handling of coal ash.
Secondly, the passage argues that if stricter laws were to be applied, the recycling of coal ash might be discouraged. Chiefly because costumers would come to think that recycled coal ash products are too perilous. The professor, nonetheless, doesn't think that this will occur. He provides an example of strict regulations that were adopted in handling a dangerous chemical, mercury, and that these rules didn't have adverse effects on neither the consumers of the recycled products nor its recycling.
At last, the passage considers the increase in the handling costs for the power companies to be an issue. As stated in the lecture, the costs would be as high as 15 billion $, but it would be worth the consequent results. Moreover, an average household would experience increase in electric bill by 1 % and thus, it wouldn't be too much pressure for the public.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 185, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...o use linar when disposing of coal ash, so as to prevent the leaking of the noxious mate...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 604, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...water. Hence, the already existing laws dont adequately ensure safe handling of coal...
^^^^
Line 5, column 244, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...o perilous. The professor, nonetheless, doesnt think that this will occur. He provides...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 304, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...is will occur. He provides an example of strict regulations that were adopted in ...
^^
Line 5, column 407, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...chemical, mercury, and that these rules didnt have adverse effects on neither the con...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 317, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...se in electric bill by 1 % and thus, it wouldnt be too much pressure for the public.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, as to, for example, for instance, 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: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1644.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28617363344 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76367245772 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 145.348785872 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578778135048 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 419.366225166 120% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.1306769242 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.3333333333 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2777777778 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.55555555556 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.524965149875 0.272083759551 193% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.137911977914 0.0996497079465 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0885574135481 0.0662205650399 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.288160868359 0.162205337803 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.066504108104 0.0443174109184 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 63.6247240618 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.