Based on the given materials, the article as well as the lecture discusses US regulations for controlling coal ash, which is a hazardous chemical. Although some power companies find the current rules sufficient, US environmentalists claim several requirements of having new stricter regulations. The author states that those power companies have some ideas for rejecting the new rules. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate this rejection.
Initially, the author exemplifies using liner-special materials, which precludes coal ash elements from leaking into soil, to say that current regulations are so effective. However, the lecturer explains that using those materials is only districted to builds of new landfills and it does not include adding to old constructions. As a result, it leads coal ash components to leak into the ground water, which directly is related to the drink water. So, the current rules are sufficient, only when it regulates the old constructions as well as the new ones.
Second, the writer proclaims that new regulations might affect the recycling coal ash into other useful products like concrete and bricks, by which the less the amounts of recycling, the less the demands of consumers, because of finding those materials dangerous. Yet again, the speaker underscores that this conclusion directly depends on how people respond to strict regulations for other dangerous materials, like mercury, which is a hazardous material with recycling period of over 50 years. This length of recycling period is more worrying to consumers that any other factors.
The final point of contention between the reading and listening passage is power companies’ costs. The author thinks that by new regulations, current costs of power companies will be increased by approximately ten times, which increase the price of household electricity. On the other hand, the speaker explains that extra costs for having new regulations is just 15 billion dollars, which increase the average household electricity bills by only one percent; it is really worthful for having cleaner environment.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, really, second, so, well, as for, as to, as a result, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1805.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 329.0 270.72406181 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48632218845 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96267309062 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550151975684 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 542.7 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.5783405989 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.928571429 110.228320801 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.85714285714 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.427402358643 0.272083759551 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1343138459 0.0996497079465 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0667052386792 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.24408813838 0.162205337803 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0197460773425 0.0443174109184 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 63.6247240618 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.