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 argument presents reasons as to why all the bulb lightings changed to LED lights. While it may be actually true that LED lights might be more cost efficient, the argument is flawed due to several counterfactors. The argument omits the possibility of more frequent burn outs of LEDs, which can lead to increase in overall running costs. It is also assumed that LEDs can entirely serve the purpose of the bulb. All these factors seriously compromise use of LEDs in place of the light bulbs.
The largest leap in the argument is that considering LEDs will fulfill all the functions of a bulb. It might be the case that people in these public buildings are unwilling to work under LEDs which are more bright and can cause harm to their eyes. This calls for a study that can establish if LEDs are the perfect replacement of bulbs.
Even if we consider that LEDs are equally functional as that of bulbs the argument omits if these require more maintenance costs. It is likely that LEDs burn out more frequently than bulbs and so inspite of being cheaper the overall costs might go up. Additional information on whether durability of LEDs and its comparision to the bulbs is necessary to understand the implications of the shift on the long-term costs.
Finally, the study also assumes that burnt-out bulbs are useless, it might be the case that they can be repaired and relieve the city council of the monetary burden. It has to be established that a bulb once burn out is beyond use.
While the argument presents an interesting plan of cutting lighting costs, the argument has crucial gaps that should be taken into account before making conclusion. First, the argument omits if LEDs are acceptable to people who work in public buildings. Further, there might ill-effects of brighter light on the eyes of these people. The argument can be strengthened by finding out if the cost of maintaining a LED light is lower than that of a bulb. These steps might not be enough to establish the validity of the hypothesis beyond a doubt, but they would help in determining whether the pursuit of the hypothesis is a good use of time, funds, and attention.
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 375 350
No. of Characters: 1738 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.401 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.635 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.559 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 104 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 87 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.397 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.345 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.559 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, if, may, so, then, while, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1782.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 375.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.752 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60733188443 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.482666666667 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 539.1 705.55239521 76% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.9507840774 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.0 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8333333333 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.77777777778 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.233381321874 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0887966740331 0.0743258471296 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0440731567733 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149059315637 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0272386855757 0.0628817314937 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 48.3550499002 141% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.27 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.