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.
This argument conclude that there is no need for constructing new generating plants for the electric power company, since the requirement is not so much. Based on the fact that individuals may want to save energy and technologies may help to reduce energy cost and heat loss, the suggestion seems reasonable. However, this statement is rife with holes, the author should evaluate the assumptions to establish the argument strongly.
Citing surveys of home owners, the author indicate the residents would like to reduce the energy cost. It is not clear, however, the validity and scope of the survey. For example, the survey could have only asked residents who are in lack of money so they are forced to save energy, but in most city, they are the minority. In addition, although they are considering to this plan, they may not do it. Even if the survey’s sample is representative and they have enough executive force, we may find that it is exactly the high level consume that make them want to do this. Unless the survey is fully representative and informant’s motivation is cleared, it can not be used to back the author’s argument effectively.
As for the objective part, the author illuminate that the cost of energy today is less than the past, and the requirement is well met in a long term. But when mention that our electric appliances are more efficient, why don’t we think about another fact that there are more quantity of a myriad of appliances working today. A family may only has refrigerator and television decades ago, however, nearly every family own their computers and air conditioners(some time even not only one in a house), which will definitely increase the power consumption. In this situation, though the power used to keep heat is reduced, other needs run in opposite direction. Since the kinds and range of applications is not monotonous, the author’s demonstration is untenable.
Another site of technology development should be taken in to consideration. On the one hand, it is likely to spring up emergency that did not occur before, using and transporting power differently from the past, thus may result in a surge of power demand. On the other hand, a retain of equipment may lower the acquisition cost, but it may not save the using cost. As time goes on, these three generating plants may pay the debt of nature, and can not support the demand of city plausibly, beside it maybe too expensive to maintain. Without ruling out the possibilities, the planning department could not undeniably implicate no demand in construction of new plants.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 19 15
No. of Words: 436 350
No. of Characters: 2083 1500
No. of Different Words: 236 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.57 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.778 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.752 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.947 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.33 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.283 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.477 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.069 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 15, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'concludes'.
Suggestion: concludes
This argument conclude that there is no need for constructing ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 394, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e considering to this plan, they may not do it. Even if the survey’s sample is re...
^^
Line 7, column 276, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...rge of power demand. On the other hand, a retain of equipment may lower the acquisition ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mand in construction of new plants.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, so, thus, well, as for, for example, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2169.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98620689655 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8647404787 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540229885057 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 690.3 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.7318098347 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.157894737 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8947368421 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73684210526 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.121168591919 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0349402913508 0.0743258471296 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0338005564072 0.0701772020484 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0687916620693 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.015713553738 0.0628817314937 25% => 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: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.