The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of a company that specializes in the delivery of heating oil.
"Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last heating season, that region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures, and climate forecasters predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes are being built in the region in response to recent population growth. Because of these trends, we can safely predict that this region will experience an increased demand for heating oil during the next five years."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Based on the evidence of climate forecasting and population growth, the article draws the conclusion that the demand for heating oil in the region would increase in the five years. Though it might appear reasonable and convincing at first glance, we need more evidence in order to fully evaluate the trend of the heating oil demand in the region.
First, the author suggests that climate in the region would be cold in the following five years because of the weather forecas as a crucial evidence to support the conclusion. Nevertheless, we need more evidence about the accuracy of the forecasting. For instance, it is important to have an idea of the performances of the forecasting years before to ensure that the climate trend predicted is highly possible. What is more, granted that the weather forecasting is accurate, more interview with local people is still necessary since low temperature alone cannot guarantee that they feel cold and are in need for heating. It is possible that local people feel much warmer than what the temperature suggests because of the low level of wind and sufficient sunshine in the region. Only when all the evidence is acquired can we make sensible judgement on the conclusion that the author suggests.
Second, even if the climate is cold and local residence needs heating, the author's conclusion that the demand for oil heating will certainly increase is still open to critique. People may choose other type of fuels for heating such as electricity via air-conditioner or solar energy. The only evidence the author offer as the evidence is that people in Northeastern US traditionally used heating oil as major fuel for heating. It is, however, not convincing because the specific region the memo talks about cannot represent the Northwestern region as a whole. Some characters of the region may makes people there prefer other types of fuel. Additionally, the tradition of heating oil usage cannot promise the prevailance of it in the future because people may prefer sustainable energy now, thus choose solar energy. In both scenario, more investigation is required to rule out other alternative explanations and fully evaluate the author's conclusion.
To sum up, the arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 76, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... and local residence needs heating, the authors conclusion that the demand for oil heat...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 933, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ive explanations and fully evaluate the authors conclusion. To sum up, the arguer&a...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, still, thus, for instance, such as, to sum up, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2135.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 411.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19464720195 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85784419785 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491484184915 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 689.4 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.0774829372 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.588235294 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1764705882 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.47058823529 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.157983495435 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0544692582405 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0591610624242 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0933150056788 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0604127144267 0.0628817314937 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.