One increasingly popular policy for promoting renewable energy is a feed-in tariff. Under such a policy, investors on any scale, from large corporations to individual homeowners, produce their own energy from solar panels installed on their property. Electricity companies are then required to purchase the energy through a long-term contract at an increased rate that allows the investors to more than offset the cost over time. There is no denying that the initial cost of solar installation is a burden on the investor. In strenuous economic times, both businesses and homeowners might be reluctant to make the investment due to concern that the payout could be less than sufficient or the plan might prove unfeasible. However, research has shown that a feed-in tariff plan is not only stable but also exceptionally effective and it ought to be more actively pursued.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.
It is stated that feed-in tariff plan is efficient and stable. They have come to this conclusion based on their research. Though on the first look the argument sounds logical, but on closer inspection this is not the case. However, before properly evaluating the argument three questions must be answered.
Firstly Where did the research take place? Within a particular locality or a small province or a city. The author does not mention this. What if this works only for a specific sophisticated regions and perhaps villages are not aware of this. This may not be supported in rural areas or villages where we might not have all the satellite availability or necessary power supply to maintain this.If the above scenario has merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, Is only solar installation - a solution? They might have also tried wind power or any other source of power which even required low cost of installation too. They provide a better means of promoting renewable energy. Author does not provide any evidence for this.If the above scenario holds true, then the argument does not hold strength.
Thirdly, What if the season does not support? There are times where the solar energy is low. Now-a-days electricity is mandatory every minute. So what if solar energy does not support for a week? Then the companies or industries has to face troubles. Lot of work will be pending. In the above case the argument is weakened.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to several unwarranted assumptions. If the author answers the above three questions and provide more evidence then it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the recommendation that feed-in tariff plan is effective and stable and engenders growth in near future
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 304 350
No. of Characters: 1489 1500
No. of Different Words: 170 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.176 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.898 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.643 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 103 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 78 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 13.818 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.628 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.26 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.469 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.04 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
It is stated that feed-in tariff plan is...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...three questions must be answered. Firstly Where did the research take plac...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 413, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: If
...necessary power supply to maintain this.If the above scenario has merit, then the ...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rgument is significantly weakened. Secondly, Is only solar installation - a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 294, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: If
... does not provide any evidence for this.If the above scenario holds true, then the...
^^
Line 9, column 370, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...en the argument does not hold strength. Thirdly, What if the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ve case the argument is weakened. In conclusion, the argument, as it stand...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 206, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...ree questions and provide more evidence then it will be possible to evaluate the via...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 55.5748502994 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1546.0 2260.96107784 68% => OK
No of words: 302.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11920529801 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71825407701 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.566225165563 0.468620217663 121% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 705.55239521 69% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 22.8473053892 57% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 58.5572581269 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 70.2727272727 119.503703932 59% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 13.7272727273 23.324526521 59% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 5.22727272727 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0964756611284 0.218282227539 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0309363022434 0.0743258471296 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0418072658402 0.0701772020484 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0555277784921 0.128457276422 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0329833288441 0.0628817314937 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 14.3799401198 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.28 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.197005988 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.82 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 12.3882235529 40% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 11.1389221557 65% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.