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 claim of the argument takes help of many unwarranted assumptions and if these assumptions do not hold true, the argument falls flat.
The claim does not consider the fact that the total electrical costs is a sum of running costs and installation costs, since it has only mentioned that LEDs are brighter and hence would cost less. It might be true that lesser number of lights might be required to generate same lux as of older bulbs which might result into lesser running costs, but there is no answer to question of installation costs. Even though the LED's cost same as incandescent bulbs, it is possible that the installation cost of the LEDs are very high since it might need some special electrical supply requiremnts or some special expensive fittings for installation. The argument fails to address these questions and if the answer to these questions is that the installation costs are very high, then it seriously weakens the argument of the council.
Besides this, the argument fails to answer the question of reliability and running life of LEDs. The argument states that, the council will save money in the future by installing LED lights, but there is no clarity on running life of these lights, there is a possibility that the running hours for LEDs is less than existing lights and hence might need more frequent replacements, thereby increasing maintenance costs, which seriously weakens the claims of the council.
Apart from the points above, the argument does take into consideration the fact that, these brighter lights might be unsuitable for certain applications where the council is planning such replacements. For example, brighter lights may cause irritation to patients in a public hospital or to the clerk at the desk of a government office. Besides this, there is also a possibility that the environment where the council is planning to install the LEDs might not suit the lights, such as, in a government laboratory, there are chances that the LEDs are vulnerable to certain gases generated in the laboratory. In such cases, LEDs will fail more often and hence will lead to high maintenance costs, which undermines the claims of the argument.
The argument makes use of several unstated assumptions that can challenge its claim and hence the conclusion of the argument is not completely valid unless it addresses these unwarranted assumptions.
- 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 50
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the wellbeingof the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe thatthe only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is tomake as muc 16
- Colleges and universities should require their students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country 66
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones 58
- Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying 50
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, hence, if, may, so, then, apart from, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1990.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 393.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06361323155 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74646545045 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.450381679389 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 598.5 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => 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: 35.0 22.8473053892 153% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 90.2139788695 57.8364921388 156% => OK
Chars per sentence: 180.909090909 119.503703932 151% => OK
Words per sentence: 35.7272727273 23.324526521 153% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.09090909091 5.70786347227 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.115848661768 0.218282227539 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0476705487893 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0326078252296 0.0701772020484 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0540978023439 0.128457276422 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0467094903493 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
automated_readability_index: 20.3 14.3799401198 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.41 48.3550499002 92% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.66 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.0 11.1389221557 144% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.
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: 12 15
No. of Words: 393 350
No. of Characters: 1949 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.452 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.959 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.695 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.417 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.917 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.419 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.419 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.13 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5