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.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to help
evaluate the efficacy of the city council’s proposal to save money on electrical costs. Be sure to
explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the council’s prediction.
The argument of town X reducing the city's electric expenses by switching all the lights in public buildings from incandescent bulbs to light-emitting diodes is one based on several assumptions which makes it a flawed argument. Some of the identified flaws in the argument are highlighted below while their effects are also explained.
The assumption failed to first identify the cause of the city electric expense increase. There are many factors that could have triggered the hike in fee some of which include an increase in tariff rate, increase in the number of consumers in the city, increase in the hours of usage by individual consumers. Unless the cause of the hike in the expenses is identified, the city won't be able to proffer a solution to the expenses problem they are facing.
Another identified flaw in the argument is the proposition to change the incandescent bulb once they burn out. The argument failed to take into consideration that an average incandescent lamp can last more than a year and the basis of usage can be a huge factor in deciding how long the bulb will last. Likewise, the argument failed to address the issue of commensuration, there are light emitting diodes herein referred to as LED that have higher ratings compared to that of an incandescent bulb. Until the argument is able to address this issue, there is a possibility of the LED having a higher power rating compared to an incandescent bulb.
Furthermore, the argument failed to consider the durability of the LED as compared to incandescent bulb. There is a possibility of an LED lifetime being shorter than that of an incandescent light bulb, which means the LED could be replaced multiple time during a lifetime of a single incandescent bulb hence increasing the cost of purchasing the bulbs and simultaneously increasing the electricity expenses.
Conclusively, the argument failed to distinguish whether the expenses being inferred covers the cost of purchasing and servicing electrical installations and other electrical power consuming equipment as it is a known fact that electrical gadgets and equipments consume more electricity than any lighting fixtures ever will. The councils need to address all these identified flaws before a meaningful and logical solution can be attained.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 373 350
No. of Characters: 1890 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.395 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.067 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.955 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.692 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.234 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.385 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.4 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.67 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.146 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 228, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...tions which makes it a flawed argument. Some of the identified flaws in the argument are hi...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 421, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'expenses'' or 'expense's'?
Suggestion: expenses'; expense's
...nt be able to proffer a solution to the expenses problem they are facing. Another ide...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, hence, if, likewise, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1924.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 372.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17204301075 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00170491501 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.483870967742 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 621.9 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => 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: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 73.7569172365 57.8364921388 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.0 119.503703932 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6153846154 23.324526521 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.30769230769 5.70786347227 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.384122461344 0.218282227539 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142246701566 0.0743258471296 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12119781216 0.0701772020484 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.214139779328 0.128457276422 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0956054598297 0.0628817314937 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.3 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.