The following apeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company.
“Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy. At the same time, manufacturers are now marketing many home appliances, such as refrigerators and air conditioners that are almost twice as energy efficient as those sold a decade ago. Also, new technologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating are radily available to reduce the energy needed for home heating. Therefore, the total demand for electricity in our area will not increase- and may decline slightly. Sinc our three electric generating plants in operation for the past twenty years have always met our needs,construction of new generating plants will not be necessary.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated ussumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
It might seem logical, al the first glance, to agree with the memorandum that building new generating plants won’t be necessary for the future relies on what might be less credible and unproven assumptions to support its conclusion that I will distinguish below.
First, to justify this argument, the author relies on several recent surveys. These surveys might not be accurate since we don’t know how many people were involved in this survey or even who or what company inducted these surveys. Also, the survey methodology may be problematic and the results are tainted. If this is a case, the argument conclusion about not building new generating plants would be lack any merits.
Second, the author doesn’t consider future conditions. For instance, he or she considers that the weather will be stable and doesn’t consider the effect of climate change. It is possible that in the future the weather conditions will be more severe and those three electric generating plants won’t be enough. Furthermore, what if one of these generating plants detroys due to some condition in the future? If something like this happens, two generating plants won’t be enough for responding to the need of the population.
Third, the argument fails to provide any justification that the population in the future will be as eager as the existing population about conserving enegry. For one, there is a chance that the future generation won’s use of energy efficient and relatig technology as much as this generation. In this case, the need for electricity will be much more and therefore, the need for the fourth and even fifth generating plants will increase. More significantly, the author doesn’t consider the population growth and the population that will add by migration in the future. This increase might be so high that even with all these conserving energies, another generating plant will be needed.
Finally, in order to improve the argument as a whole, we would need more additional data about the surveys and it’s methodology, population rate and imigration, the condition and helath of the three generating plants to fully evalute the argument and assess it.
To recapitulate, despite the argument suffers from several problems and is unconvincing, but we cannot absolutely rely on it or refuse it without persuing any additional assumptions and reasoning. The author cans strengthen his or her assertion by changing states reffered to the mentioned solution. Without these changes, the argument is implausible and the reasing is faulty.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 417 350
No. of Characters: 2079 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.519 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.986 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.708 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.947 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.248 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.314 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.575 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
It might seem logical, al the first glan...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lusion that I will distinguish below. First, to justify this argument, the aut...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ting plants would be lack any merits. Second, the author doesn't consider...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...onding to the need of the population. Third, the argument fails to provide any...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ther generating plant will be needed. Finally, in order to improve the argumen...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...valute the argument and assess it. To recapitulate, despite the argument su...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, third, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2185.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 410.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32926829268 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90428717547 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49512195122 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 685.8 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.913813773 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.0 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5789473684 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.10526315789 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0802808091365 0.218282227539 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0302931625234 0.0743258471296 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0215028614318 0.0701772020484 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0454250001109 0.128457276422 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0167839017439 0.0628817314937 27% => 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: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.