At the first glance, the argument looks logical based on the information stated but on careful analysis, one could easily find it rife of assumptions. These assumptions dictate the validity of the argument and are thus crucial.
The argument is based on the efficacy of the renewable sources, however it is not stated where do these resources stand as compared to conventional resources of energy. Assuming they are efficient does not justify the advice offered in the conclusion. It may be true that the renewable sources are less efficient as compared to the alternatives and thus it may not be feasible for the investors to adopt them. If this is true, this would significantly weaken the argument. On the contrary, if it is untrue then the argument stands strong.
Additionally, author does not provide information on the time period that would be necessary for the renewable sources to become profitable for the investors. This ambiguity in the information exposes another hole in the argument. If the time period is short and feasible enough for the electricity companies then which would enable investors to achieve profitability sooner. If this assumption in not true, the argument loses its meaning.Moreover, there is no evidence presented to buttress the claim that these resources are stable. There are no metrics posited that prove this assumption. Is the energy tapping from these resources more stable than those from conventional ones? If the answer is yes, it fortifies the author's argument otherwise this would indicate another fallacy in the argument. It may be true, they are not as stable as they are required to be to ensure the feasibility and profitability in long run. If this is the case, the argument is further weakened.
Lastly, author has assumed the research indicating the feed-in tariff plan to be exceptionally effective. The reliability of the research is not supported with the data. It may be a fabricated one to misguide the investors to invest in renewable resources. If true, this would cast serious doubts on the validity of the argument. On the other hand, if this research is conducted fairly by unbiased organization and the data collected in research justifies the effectiveness of the resources, then the argument is strengthened.
Thus, the information on the efficacy, stability , nature of contracts with electricity companies and reliability of the research is imperative to evaluate the argument correctly. If the assumptions are in favor of the argument as discussed, then the argument becomes infallible, otherwise it stays ill-founded and flawed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 440, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Moreover
...ot true, the argument loses its meaning.Moreover, there is no evidence presented to butt...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 722, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... If the answer is yes, it fortifies the authors argument otherwise this would indicate ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 49, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...e information on the efficacy, stability , nature of contracts with electricity co...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'on the contrary', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.199566160521 0.25644967241 78% => OK
Verbs: 0.177874186551 0.15541462614 114% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0845986984816 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0629067245119 0.0520304965353 121% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0303687635575 0.0272364105082 112% => OK
Prepositions: 0.117136659436 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0412147505423 0.0416121511921 99% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.0320296011 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0260303687636 0.026700313972 97% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.154013015184 0.113004496875 136% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0216919739696 0.0255425247493 85% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00650759219089 0.0127820249294 51% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2608.0 2731.13054187 95% => OK
No of words: 419.0 446.07635468 94% => OK
Chars per words: 6.22434367542 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.384248210024 0.378187486979 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.326968973747 0.287650121315 114% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.255369928401 0.208842608468 122% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.17661097852 0.135150697306 131% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0320296011 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 207.018472906 91% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45107398568 0.469332199767 96% => OK
Word variations: 48.748354432 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.2173913043 23.2022227129 79% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.1256155004 57.7814097925 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.391304348 141.986410481 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2173913043 23.2022227129 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.565217391304 0.724660767414 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 50.914288679 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.32 1.8405768891 72% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0976428611682 0.441005458295 22% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.112703298609 0.135418324435 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0863233191968 0.0829849096947 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.590215629438 0.58762219726 100% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.158220493908 0.147661913831 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0535784343928 0.193483328276 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0381160628115 0.0970749176394 39% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.597769657725 0.42659136922 140% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0953233561262 0.0774707102158 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0734613007804 0.312017818177 24% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0258470563711 0.0698173142475 37% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.