The following appeared 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 readily 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. Since 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 assumptions 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.
The argument attempts to bridge a relationship between the fact that for the past twenty years the electric generating plants were strong enough and because of new technologies there will not be an increased need of energy construction of new generating plants will not be necessary in the future. However, on deeper analysis, there are certainly important questions unanswered and facts unnoticed leading to a number of mistaken assumptions and logical flaws.
‘’Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy’’. This seems to be a sign of energy servings. However, without additional information it is not possible to make an argument of it. There have to be information about the population in this research. Does this population generate energy of the same plants as the article noticed? Are people who eager to conserve energy are able to make this true? In addition, there is also nothing known about the group size, research method, content of the surveys and interpretation of the results. That information in required to make a cogent argument.
The article claims that new technology leads to a reduced energy need for home heating. This may be true but more information is required to assess if this is a reliable argument. It may be true that technology reduces energy need but this will not automatically mean that the need of energy decreased parallel. It may happened that people use more energy because a warm temperature is nicer.
The author claims that only home owners influenced the need of electric generating plants. However, also industry and companies use energy. It may be happened that this sector increase significantly which also influenced the need of new electric generating plants.
To conclude, the argument lacks information and seems to provide inchoate assumptions such as because of plants always met our needs this also will be in the future does not make any sense. The report has to present more concrete evidence to substantiated the claim and make the argument more cogent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 406, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a eager'.
Suggestion: who is a eager
...ants as the article noticed? Are people who eager to conserve energy are able to make thi...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, as to, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1759.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 335.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25074626866 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99302523286 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.468656716418 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 705.55239521 80% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 58.0742193959 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5789473684 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6315789474 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.15789473684 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.121270698794 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0445371741217 0.0743258471296 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0853087980146 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0682516740319 0.128457276422 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0658469437517 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.87 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.