Tpo41: professor and passage challenge each others on how to rules on coal ash could beneficial
In the reading, some representatives of power companies aver that new regulations are not of necessity and they might have a counterproductive effect on the society, whereas the professor in the listening repudiates that stricter regulations are indispensable, since existing regulations do not act as a sufficient monitor.
To begin with, the writer posits that there exist effective environmental regulations such as the application of liner. On the contrary, the lecturer disapproves the assertion by demonstrating that new legislations are only valid for new ponds or landfills power companies establish not for the old ponds and landfills which have caused tremendous damage to the living environment. Accordingly, new laws should come into effect in an attempt to protect the environment from destruction.
In addition, the writer deems that establishing rather strict rules for storing and handing coal ash might be detrimental to the recycling process of coal ash. Adversely, the speechmaker refutes that the arrival of new legislation does not mean that consumers will stop purchasing recycled coal ash products. To put her idea forward, the professor takes an instance of mercury to illustrate that the processes of recycling and reusing of mercury have continued for fifteen years.
Finally, the writer contends that stricter laws would contribute to a considerable rise in disposal and handing costs as well as subsequently increase the price of electricity. By contrast, the speaker views the statement from a different angle. She claims that though the aggregated cost for disposal and handing seems to be astronomical, around 15 billions, the per capita amount of electricity bill would go up only 1 %. Consequently, it is not a big compensation for inhabiting a cleaner environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 492, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ig compensation for inhabiting a cleaner environment.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, consequently, finally, if, so, well, whereas, in addition, such as, as well as, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1529.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2762052584 2.5805825403 127% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60071942446 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.9978190671 49.2860985944 146% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.0 110.228320801 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2727272727 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.6363636364 7.06452816374 165% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.423178095583 0.272083759551 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126578332698 0.0996497079465 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.091692470745 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210477016268 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0675420537414 0.0443174109184 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 13.3589403974 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 53.8541721854 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.92 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.65 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.5 10.7273730684 200% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
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.