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 city council argues that this will be an effective move to save the city's electric expenses as LED bulbs burn brighter and their costing is same as the incandescent bulbs used previously. Since they burn brighter, one bulb might be able to cover bigger surface areas and thus, the overall number of bulbs used might be less in number.
However, the efficacy of the city council's decision rests on a lot of points. First of all, even though, the LED lights burn brighter do they burn for as long as the incandescent lights used previously? Otherwise, cost of switching LED bulbs more often might surpass the cost the city saves by switching. Moreover, since it is mentioned that they burn brighter, one might question if they consume more energy than an average incandescent bulb? Do their use also create an increase in one's electric bills? The council should also consider whether LEDs would increase the overall energy consumption, and as a result the electric bill amount, of the entire city.
Another point of contention would the point of switching in itself. The council says that the switch would be made gradually as the old incandescent bulbs burn out. Do the LED bulbs work with the same socket as the previously used incandescent ones? If not, what is the cost of changing the old sockets and installing new ones? Do they work with the same electrical connections or will the city circuits need refurbishing? If so, these will introduce a much higher cost than just letting old LEDs burn out. If there are more than two bulbs already connected in a circuit and one of them is burning out, does it mean we can substitute only one bulb and leave the other bulb as it is? If not, we might also have to throw out old bulbs in good condition, which will also incur additional losses on the council's part.
Also, the city council should also consider other unintended factors which might result from this switch. Since it is mentioned that they burn more brightly, do they also cause greater heating effects? If yes, this might increase the use of air conditioners and fans in the public buildings which might again increase cost output of the city. Furthermore, we should also consider questions like whether the use of LED lights might cause any potential environmental harm etc. which might need a greater monetary investment from the council in the future.
Thus the efficacy of the council's idea rests on only one argument - LED lights burn brighter - which as already mentioned might not be a good thing in itself (Do they burn out quicker? Does it consume more energy? Is there more cost of maintenance?). Moreover switching out old bulbs to new might not be a very cost effective method which has been glossed over by the city council. While it may actually be a good idea and help Town X save more money, we cannot simply deduce it from the given argument itself.
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: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 531 350
No. of Characters: 2480 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.8 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.67 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.429 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.423 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.196 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.654 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.33 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.33 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 505, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: less
...e overall number of bulbs used might be less in number. However, the efficacy of the city cou...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 684, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...bulb and leave the other bulb as it is? If not, we might also have to throw out ol...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...tment from the council in the future. Thus the efficacy of the councils idea rests...
^^^^
Line 5, column 26, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'councils'' or 'council's'?
Suggestion: councils'; council's
... the future. Thus the efficacy of the councils idea rests on only one argument - LED l...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 250, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...gy? Is there more cost of maintenance?. Moreover switching out old bulbs to new might no...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, thus, while, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.9520958084 208% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2534.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 531.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77212806026 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80035803286 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4990619137 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.429378531073 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 762.3 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 2.70958083832 369% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.1104469512 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.4615384615 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4230769231 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.07692307692 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.455401357389 0.218282227539 209% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.12558588709 0.0743258471296 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.144697234787 0.0701772020484 206% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.292556999313 0.128457276422 228% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.159983819425 0.0628817314937 254% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 48.3550499002 141% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.48 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.