In this argument, the author concludes that a electric power company does not have to build new generating plants. To support his claim, the editor points out that recent surveys showed that people were increasingly eager to conserve energy. Also, the arguer indicates that because of new techonologies the demand for electricity will decrease. Furthermore, he suggests that three generating stations for twenty years ago have already met the needs for electricity. However, these do not constitute a logical argument fot its conclusion, and fail to present substantial support, making the case vulnerable.
To begin with, the argument omits two aspects of the study - time and authenticity. Although these studies have been recently issued, the argument does not clearly define the time frame of the studies: Whether they were conducted recently or in the past. Moreover, the argument does not throw light on the researchers, or their works has been acknowledged or published by a recommended body overseeing these studies. The study would cogent had it included the methods and instruments used for this specific study. Thus, predicting the increasing number of people who eager to save up electric power seems unreliable if the above factors are not included.
Another threshold probme is that the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the new technologies and a slightly decline in the total demand for electricity. It is higher possible that other factos contribute to a decrease for power’s need. For instance, inviduals may consume woods for generating heat since woods are much cheaper than electricity. Or perhaps because of global warming, the winter is less cold than before so that human do not have to utilize much power to warm themselves. Therefore, without ruling out these possibilities, we cannot justifiably conclude that new technologies are the reasons to reduce the demand for electricity.
Moreover, the arguer cliams that the construction of new power stations is unnecessary because the three current power plants are enough to provide energy for the residents. This assumption is unwarranted because things rarely reamin the same over extend period of time. There are likely many differences between now and future. For example, since these three generating plants have operated for 20 years, it is likely that some of machines in the sations are too old to be used. Thus, the electric company has to build a new one with advaced mechaines. Moreover, it is probably that there will be an increasing number of people who desire to use powers because they are convinent. To meet the need for electric power, electric firms may add more power plants. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the current generating plants are enough to provide energy in the future.
To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that the construction for new generating plants will be not necessary becasue the evidence cited does not lend convincing support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the speaker out to present more information about the authenticity of the studies, a correct causal relationship, and other factors which would influence the future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 45, 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
...his argument, the author concludes that a electric power company does not have to...
^
Line 3, column 564, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a eager'.
Suggestion: who is a eager
...dicting the increasing number of people who eager to save up electric power seems unrelia...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 119, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('slightly') instead an adjective, or a noun ('decline') instead of another adjective.
...onship between the new technologies and a slightly decline in the total demand for electricity. It...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 256, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...ings rarely reamin the same over extend period of time. There are likely many differences betw...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 425, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'some of', you should use 'the' ('some of the machines') or simply say ''some machines''.
Suggestion: some of the machines; some machines
...perated for 20 years, it is likely that some of machines in the sations are too old to be used. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'as to', 'for example', 'for instance', 'to begin with', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.219554030875 0.25644967241 86% => OK
Verbs: 0.185248713551 0.15541462614 119% => OK
Adjectives: 0.082332761578 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0600343053173 0.0520304965353 115% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0222984562607 0.0272364105082 82% => OK
Prepositions: 0.114922813036 0.125424944231 92% => OK
Participles: 0.041166380789 0.0416121511921 99% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.80599190201 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0394511149228 0.026700313972 148% => OK
Particles: 0.00686106346484 0.001811407834 379% => OK
Determiners: 0.11320754717 0.113004496875 100% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0171526586621 0.0255425247493 67% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00686106346484 0.0127820249294 54% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3275.0 2731.13054187 120% => OK
No of words: 524.0 446.07635468 117% => OK
Chars per words: 6.25 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7844588288 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.395038167939 0.378187486979 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.290076335878 0.287650121315 101% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.200381679389 0.208842608468 96% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.135496183206 0.135150697306 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80599190201 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 269.0 207.018472906 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513358778626 0.469332199767 109% => OK
Word variations: 61.8773481831 52.1807786196 119% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.039408867 125% => OK
Sentence length: 20.96 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.039100889 57.7814097925 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.0 141.986410481 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.96 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.64 0.724660767414 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 49.9676335878 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.40384615385 1.8405768891 76% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.398591165277 0.441005458295 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0877866680232 0.135418324435 65% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0674315649476 0.0829849096947 81% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.520958501358 0.58762219726 89% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.146648099118 0.147661913831 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.158785226484 0.193483328276 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0682748371914 0.0970749176394 70% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.402840080117 0.42659136922 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0738566277242 0.0774707102158 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.279116963624 0.312017818177 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0499195428652 0.0698173142475 72% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.