The author has concluded this argument by saying that there is no need for an additional electric power plant in the area because the total electricity demand in the domain is not likely to increase in the future. He has supported his conclusion by citing the availability of new energy-efficient home appliances and systems for homes, and the eagerness of area homeowners to conserve energy. However, the argument loosely relies on several doubtful assumptions and is, therefore unconvincing.
Firstly, the author has talked about homeowners who are increasingly eager to conserve energy and manufacturers who are now marketing many home appliances, such as refrigerators and air conditioners that are energy efficient. However, he has very conveniently ignored industries and offices. The author has not considered that business and commercial electricity usage is much more than what is used in homes. There is a possibility that businesses in the area will increase their use of electricity in the future and that total electricity consumption will increase despite declining residential demand for electric power.
The author's statement also ignores the possibility of an increase in population in that area. Hence, an increase in population would increase electricity usage even if homeowners use appliances that are more electricity efficient. Without taking into account all these possibilities, the author cannot conclude the argument by saying that the total demand for electricity will not increase in the future and therefore, there is no need to construct a new generating plant.
The next point that the author raises is that homeowners are eager to conserve energy. Even then, it is entirely possible that the residents will not be able to afford these new systems and appliances. The author is dependent on the assumption that the area residents will purchase and install the energy-saving devices and systems the author is talking about.
Moreover, the author has not mentioned whether new technologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating will be useful for only newly constructed homes or these technologies will also work in the existing homes.
Finally, the author is assuming that no new electric power plants are needed because the three existing plants, which are 20 years old, have always been adequate for the area's electricity needs. Again, the author has not considered that the 20 year old power plants themselves are using old technologies and hence, might be less energy efficient. While the new plants with new technologies and energy saving machines will be much more efficient. Anyways, machines in the old plants have to be replaced after some time.
Hence, all these points are against the author's assertion. He has not supported his argument with strong evidence. The author must have supported his statement by showing that the area residents can afford the new energy-efficient appliances and systems and the electricity demand of the businesses in that area will also not increase in the near future. He should have explored whether the new energy-efficient technologies are available for businesses as well, and whether area businesses also plan to use them. The author should have studied about the expected changes in the area's population, and about the condition and energy-efficiency of the three existing electric power plants.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 533 350
No. of Characters: 2812 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.805 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.276 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.925 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 208 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 153 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 122 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.174 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.725 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.652 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.349 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.59 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ial demand for electric power. The authors statement also ignores the possibility ...
^^^^^^^
Line 16, column 171, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'areas'' or 'area's'?
Suggestion: areas'; area's
... old, have always been adequate for the areas electricity needs. Again, the author ha...
^^^^^
Line 19, column 41, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...Hence, all these points are against the authors assertion. He has not supported his arg...
^^^^^^^
Line 19, column 580, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'areas'' or 'area's'?
Suggestion: areas'; area's
...udied about the expected changes in the areas population, and about the condition and...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, moreover, so, then, therefore, well, while, such as, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2887.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 533.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41651031895 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97049023833 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.410881801126 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 922.5 705.55239521 131% => 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
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.5060574386 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.52173913 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1739130435 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4347826087 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.146891522869 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0504831889857 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.049388867146 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0892886227556 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0540375603671 0.0628817314937 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.