what do you think about using strike rules to handling and storage of coal ash products?
The reading states that representatives of power companies argue that new regulations for controlling and storing coal ash are unnecessary and presents three reasons to defend their allegation. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes all three episodes of evidence mentioned in the passage.
Firstly, the reading says that strike environmental regulations already exist, in contrary, the speaker declares that the regulation we have now are not really sufficient. For example, under the current regulation, only new pond or landfilled of company required to use liner. Whereas old ones demand disposal sites and they have caused significant damage. And due to harmful chemical coal ash leaked to groundwater and contaminated drinking water, we absolutely need strikes regulation.
Secondly, the reading states that create strike rules might discourage the recycle of coal ash in to other products. Nevertheless, the speaker contends that strike rules for handling won't mean to stop using recycle coal ash products. For example, Mercury is hazardous material and it's storage for long time. There isn't any concern about it because of safely recycle.
Finally, the writer discusses about public complain of price of electricity because of highly increasing costs of power companies. Again the speaker opposes this idea by pay attention to the results that is well worthy extra cost. According to her, by implementing these rules would be 15 billion dollars increased that by do the math, it is increasing the bill for every family just one percent that isn't big price to pay for having cleaner environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 146, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...eclares that the regulation we have now are not really sufficient. For example, und...
^^^
Line 7, column 315, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...al and its storage for long time. There isnt any concern about it because of safely ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 402, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
... for every family just one percent that isnt big price to pay for having cleaner env...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, if, nevertheless, really, second, secondly, so, well, whereas, for example, on the other hand
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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1364.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4126984127 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78286099522 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.646825396825 0.540411800872 120% => OK
syllable_count: 424.8 419.366225166 101% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1749951545 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.923076923 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3846153846 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.07692307692 7.06452816374 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.21751057771 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0701053010771 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0771429458704 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120091641099 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0923062780182 0.0443174109184 208% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.65 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.