TPO41
The reading passage explores the issue of new regulations are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences, and several reasons are offered in support for this argument. However, the lecturer casts doubt on it and offers several reasons to oppose it.
First of all, even though the reading passage suggest that effective environmental regulations already exist, the lecturer argues that it has a batter way to improvement. That is because that the present liner which companies are using are not good enough, which means the environmental regulations need to improve. Obviously, the lecturer's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
Secondly, the speaker for the reading by mentioning the recycling of coal ash. Though the article states that creating very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products, he says that it can be benefit to the public. Therefore, the lecturer concludes that recycled coal ash products are not dangerous, and may continue to produce the products.
The last reason is that new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies. The lecturer convincingly points out that it may increase the cost for the power companies, but the price of electricity will not increase too much; moreover, in order to establish a solid and concrete statement, he offers a example that the companies will have extra cost which around 15 billion dollars, but the household will only pay the original price plus one percent.
In conclusion, based on the evidence presented above, it can be clearly to seen that the stances on both sides are paradoxical. Although the contents in the reading passage seem to be plausible, further scrutiny leads the lecturer to believe that the points of view are not correct.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 331, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...lations need to improve. Obviously, the lecturers argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 358, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...solid and concrete statement, he offers a example that the companies will have ex...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, in conclusion, 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: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1565.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 300.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21666666667 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76777287122 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553333333333 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 483.3 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.0033819604 49.2860985944 156% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.416666667 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.16666666667 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.440807450114 0.272083759551 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14686450289 0.0996497079465 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.125213675989 0.0662205650399 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188545546005 0.162205337803 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.149524116331 0.0443174109184 337% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.4 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.