The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client. “Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienced twenty days with below-average temperatures, and local weather forecasters throughout the region predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes have been built in this region during the past year. Because of these developments, we predict an increased demand for heating oil and recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil.
In the argument, it is concluded that the demand of heating oil will increase. It is based on the evidence that the homes in the north-eastern United States uses heating oil as their major source for heating and the forecast predict that the requirement will be continued. However, before the statement is properly evaluated, four questions need to be answered.
First, the arguer prematurely assumes that the weather forecast would be accurate and blindly rely on the forecast prediction. What if the prediction of forecast is not accurate? Perhaps it is possible that the average temperature of the north-eastern states might rise may be up to temperature, where there would not be any requirement of heating oil. Hence, no clear evidence is provided, the conclusion drawn from statement is significantly weakened.
Second, the arguer assumes that the newly constructed house would increase the demand of the oil heater. Perhaps it is possible that, the newly house constructed might get only few possession. Additionally, is possible that the newly constructed house is provided with intelligent electric heating system that does not require any oil heating material. If these scenarios, has merit then the conclusion does not hold water.
Third, it is assumed by the arguer that the traditional system of oil heating will remain in demand. Perhaps it possible that the new technology night isolate the conventional technology. For example, new electric heater that run solely on electric, might gain the popularity and the conventional oil heating becomes quaint. Hence, until clear and systematic evidences are not provided the conclusion drawn is flawed.
Fourth, is assumed by the author that the Consolidated Industry would remain at the top in terms of supplying heating oil to the north-eastern states. But what if new industry emerges and surpasses the Consolidated industry? Perhaps it is possible that the profit of new industry might increases either by supplying oil at low prices or by supplying more quality oil than the Consolidated industry.
If above is true, the conclusion drawn does not hold water. In sum , the argument, as it stand now, is considerably flawed due to various unwarranted assumptions. If author is able to provide much systematic evidences than it is possible to fully evaluate the feasibility of the argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 375 350
No. of Characters: 1929 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.401 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.144 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.852 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.563 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.329 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 177, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun possession seems to be countable; consider using: 'few possessions'.
Suggestion: few possessions
... newly house constructed might get only few possession. Additionally, is possible that the new...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 66, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...lusion drawn does not hold water. In sum , the argument, as it stand now, is consi...
^^
Line 6, column 163, 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.
...due to various unwarranted assumptions. If author is able to provide much systemat...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, third, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1982.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 375.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28533333333 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94743733209 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.464 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 618.3 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.1956543475 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.380952381 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8571428571 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.47619047619 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => 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: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.14491107465 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0417338492313 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0563699138749 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0782770011448 0.128457276422 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0555884630243 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.