“The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company.
‘Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy. At the same time, manufacturers are now marketing many home appliances, such as refrigerators and air conditioners, that are almost twice as energy efficient as those sold a decade ago. Also, new technologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating are readily available to reduce the energy needed for home heating. Therefore, the total demand for electricity in our area will not increase—and may decline slightly. Since our three electric generating plants in operation for the past twenty years have always met our needs, construction of new generating plants will not be necessary.’
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.”
In the memorandum which was published here, the author suggest that construction of new generating plants is unnecessary act because the total demand of electricity may decrease slightly in this area. This conclusion was based on several assumption that are unproven. Actually, most of them are false ones, and so we can claim that the suggestion made about construction of new plants is an inaccurate proposal. In the following paragraphs, three conspicuous reasons regarding inaccuracy of these assumptions will cogently substantiate my claim.
The most noticeable problem regarding this claim is that writer of this memo allude to a study, but he or she does not offer more specific information about this study. For instance, he or she did not determined the number of homeowners who were investigated. As all of you know, for a study to be really reliable it must survey large number of cases, but here the number of case studies is not clear. Maybe the study was done, using only a small number of home owners. Therefore we cannot extend its results to all home owners of the region. So suggesting a hypothesis about whole region based on an unknown study that possibly include only few house owner, is not reasonable act and it is an indefensible strategy.
Even if the study which was mentioned here was a legitimate one, still we cannot accept the proposition. The second obstacle which comes to mind is related to new technologies for better solar heating. Here and in this proposal, it is assumed that this high-tech innovations are readily available to all house owners, but this is not a true assumption. Although there has been some new advance in field of solar heating, these new innovations are still in experimental stage, and have not been launched to market. Their final impact on house energy consumption is not clear, yet. It is possible that for high expenditures of their implication and maintenance, these technologies will not be economical, in long term. Hence we cannot trust them in planning energy programs.
Although the aforementioned reasons are the first ones which cross the mind at first glance to the memo, they are by no means the only reasons available. Actually, there is another subtle point in this note which must be borne in mind, and that is the claim regarding three electric generating plants. Here, the author claims that for the past twenty years, these plants have always met the needs of region. However, it is a false statement. Frequent blackouts which happen year around, especially in warmer seasons and in time of rising energy consumptions, are signs of these plants disabilities. Hence, we can be sure about existing demand for more energy, a demand which available electric generating plants cannot respond.
To make a long story short, all of the aforementioned reasons lead us to the conclusion that the writer`s deduction cannot be taken as a sound one because, as it was shown in the paragraphs above, it depends on a number of assumptions each of which is questionable. Cases like an unspecific study, or possible technological advance or false history regarding energy supply. The author is unable to substantiate his claims with proper reasons and proofs. Therefore, we cannot see them as excellent basses for making decisions about the necessity of constructing new electric generating plants.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 231, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun assumption seems to be countable; consider using: 'several assumptions'.
Suggestion: several assumptions
...this area. This conclusion was based on several assumption that are unproven. Actually, most of th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 202, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'determine'
Suggestion: determine
... study. For instance, he or she did not determined the number of homeowners who were inves...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 440, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...r. Maybe the study was done, using only a small number of home owners. Therefore we cannot extend...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 471, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ing only a small number of home owners. Therefore we cannot extend its results to all hom...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 718, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...s will not be economical, in long term. Hence we cannot trust them in planning energy...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 29, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...respond. To make a long story short, all of the aforementioned reasons lead us to the c...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'really', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'for instance', 'you know']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.223642172524 0.240241500013 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.148562300319 0.157235817809 94% => OK
Adjectives: 0.107028753994 0.0880659088768 122% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0670926517572 0.0497285424764 135% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0447284345048 0.0444667217837 101% => OK
Prepositions: 0.115015974441 0.12292977631 94% => OK
Participles: 0.0479233226837 0.0406280797675 118% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.86154866151 2.79330140395 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.017571884984 0.030933414821 57% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.105431309904 0.0997080785238 106% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0207667731629 0.0249443105267 83% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.017571884984 0.0148568991511 118% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3376.0 2732.02544248 124% => OK
No of words: 556.0 452.878318584 123% => OK
Chars per words: 6.07194244604 6.0361032391 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85588840946 4.58838876751 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.359712230216 0.366273622748 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.246402877698 0.280924506359 88% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.187050359712 0.200843997647 93% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.145683453237 0.132149295362 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86154866151 2.79330140395 102% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 219.290929204 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498201438849 0.48968727796 102% => OK
Word variations: 60.445919645 55.4138127331 109% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.6194690265 131% => OK
Sentence length: 20.5925925926 23.380412469 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.1082230697 59.4972553346 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.037037037 141.124799967 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5925925926 23.380412469 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.555555555556 0.674092028746 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.21349557522 115% => OK
Readability: 45.2328803624 51.4728631049 88% => OK
Elegance: 1.48466257669 1.64882698954 90% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.323497398 0.391690518653 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0771032008848 0.123202303941 63% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.064404238536 0.077325440228 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.440194840045 0.547984918172 80% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.141261708837 0.149214159877 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110598511997 0.161403998019 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0641070240629 0.0892212321368 72% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.354394912235 0.385218514788 92% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0398088336588 0.0692045440612 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.227724509903 0.275328986314 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0490820776562 0.0653680567796 75% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.4325221239 58% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.30420353982 226% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88274336283 184% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 7.22455752212 69% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 3.66592920354 191% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.70907079646 221% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 13.5995575221 132% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6
---------------------
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.