The city council of Town X wants to save money on the electricity bill by switching to LEDs from old bulbs, overtime. To support their proposal they are stating that LEDs burn brighter and cost the same as the old bulbs. However, their argument is weak because they are unable to explain the efficacy of LEDs over the old bulbs.
For their first supporting fact, the argument states that the LEDs burn brighter, this could mean that they will consume more energy. If this is true then instead of saving we will have to spend more money on the bill, which not our motive. They are not able to explain whether the new bulbs are more energy-efficient than the old ones, which would justify the switch to new LEDs. Unless they provide further information on the power consumption of LEDs and their output, we cannot assume that switching to LEDs would help the cause.
Secondly, they mention that LEDs cost the same as old bulbs, but this is just the one time cost associated with the lighting. We can incur this bulk cost over time as we use the LEDs, but they have not mentioned the additional costs which we need to consider; this could include installation charges, accessories charges( if any ), etc. Furthermore, they need to explain whether enduring this expenditure is worth it.
Additionally, there are several problems involved while installing new lighting. Firstly, can we retrofit the new LEDs on the old outlets or will we need to replace them too? If we need to replace them then we will also have to consider their cost. Secondly, do the new bulbs last as long as the old ones? If they do costs might decrease, but if they burn out quickly, however, the costs could increase. The council's proposition could be stronger if they can clarify the problems in their arguments and provide support to answer the aforementioned questions.
It is good to see that the council is thinking about saving electricity, indirectly saving money. But their proposal is not worth it as their supporting argument is weak. We can consider their proposal if they work on their facts, and answer the queries.
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: 365 350
No. of Characters: 1688 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.371 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.625 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.409 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 95 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 50 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 24 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.278 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.006 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.16 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 328, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...tion charges, accessories charges if any , etc. Furthermore, they need to explain ...
^^
Line 7, column 176, 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.
...ts or will we need to replace them too? If we need to replace them then we will al...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 50.0 28.8173652695 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1743.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 365.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77534246575 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37092360658 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50246526602 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.468493150685 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 513.0 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => 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: 54.7416209271 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.8333333333 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2777777778 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.77777777778 5.70786347227 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131298560333 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0516360133149 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0677268791594 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0880034847503 0.128457276422 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0678505333619 0.0628817314937 108% => OK
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: 10.44 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.66 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => 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.