The city council of Town X has proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by switching all the lights in public buildings from incandescent bulbs to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The switch would be made gradually as the old incandescent bulbs burn out, and the city council reasons that since LED lights burn brighter and cost no more to purchase, the switch would help Town X save money on electrical costs in the future.
The city council proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by changing incandescent bulbs to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The city council also claims that LED is brighter and cost no more purchases. However, the proposal contains some flaws and will not be accepted if it fails to answer some critical assumption; moreover, the conclusion dismisses some assumption which is important to draw an accurate conclusion.
The first problem with this argument is that the city council claim LED is cost no more purchases. The cost is the same as before means does not mean that the overall cost will be the same. Moreover, it is the main initial cost of this proposal and other costs like fixing the LED, the line cost and the labour cost which is also significant to predicting a cost before a proposal. But, this proposal has no information related to cost calculation.
The second flaw is that, the city council express that LED light burns brighter. But, if the light burns more than it could be consumed more electricity and therefore expense will increase. Another is, the maximum capacity of the electric line is not known, thus if LED burns more or take electricity higher then the line can be damaged.
The third issue is if the LED is not fit in the place of incandescent bulb then what will happen? Moreover, there is no enough information about the infrastructure of the building, setting of the switch and its overall capacity of a bulb. Therefore, if the infrastructure of the building is old then will the LED bulb would be suitable? If it is not suitable then the city council need to change the infrastructure which increases expense.
While the overall hypothesis is interesting but, by examining various facts it can conclude that the city council required to present more information to validate this proposal.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 309 350
No. of Characters: 1488 1500
No. of Different Words: 140 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.193 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.816 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.692 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 96 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 28 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.849 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.867 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.455 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 301, Rule ID: COMPARISONS_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'higher than'?
Suggestion: higher than
...s if LED burns more or take electricity higher then the line can be damaged. The third is...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 338, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...en will the LED bulb would be suitable? If it is not suitable then the city counci...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, then, therefore, third, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 55.5748502994 41% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1532.0 2260.96107784 68% => OK
No of words: 309.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95792880259 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79000065299 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.478964401294 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 475.2 705.55239521 67% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.1547780917 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.428571429 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0714285714 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.28571428571 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.32955358104 0.218282227539 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121334877546 0.0743258471296 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112349175391 0.0701772020484 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178503382051 0.128457276422 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105211754052 0.0628817314937 167% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 98.500998004 63% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.