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.
A planning department of an electric power company have suggested in their memorandum that there is no need to construct new generating plants. The planning department thinks that current electric generating plants are capable enough to supply the requisite amount of electricity to it's consumers. The planning department has also cited a few evidences that seem to bolster their claim. Although, a closer look at the memorandum hints towards a few alternate possibilities that might cast doubt on the department's conclusion.
Firstly, the planning department has failed to consider the possibility of an increase in population of the people living in the area where they supply electricity. What if there is an influx of immigrants into the area where the company supplies electricity? It can be possible that the appliances that these immigrants have brought with them are not energy efficient appliances. This could mean that there will be acute load on the existing electric generating plants, and it is also possible that they can breakdown due to excessive power demands. This could undermine the planning department's claim that the current electric generators will suffice to the electricity needs.
Secondly, recent surveys indicate that home owners are eagerly interested in conserving energy. This is an evidence, presented by the planning department, which inherently states that since the home owners are eager to conserve energy, the electricity consumption would decrease and hence, additional generating plants are not required. There is a difference between willingness to do something and actually performing the task. What if the home owners are eager to conserve electricity but might not implement energy saving methods immediately? Furthermore, it could prove to be a large investment for the home owners to replace their currently inefficient appliances with energy saving appliances, something, that they might not be willing to make. This could mean that energy consumption in the area would likely not decrease, on the contrary, might even increase.
Lastly, the planning department cites that manufacturers are marketing many home appliances that are twice as energy efficient as those sold a decade ago. It might be true that the manufacturers are doing a good job at marketing their products, but how can the planning department be certain that people will buy them? It can be possible that these appliances are costlier than the appliances that are not energy efficient. It is also likely that someone who has recently purchased electronics might not wish to immediately exchange their product with an energy efficient alternative. This could mean that the energy consumption in the area might not diminish and such a situation might therefore, refute the planning department's suggestion that addition of electric generating plants are not required.
In sum, the evidences provided by the planning department are dubious and lead to many alternate possibilities. It cannot be categorically said whether the planning department's suggestion, regarding the addition of electric generating plants is a sane and a well thought suggestion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 489 350
No. of Characters: 2635 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.702 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.389 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.919 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 199 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 135 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 90 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.227 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.223 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 388, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” 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.
...ences that seem to bolster their claim. Although, a closer look at the memorandum hints ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 503, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'departments'' or 'department's'?
Suggestion: departments'; department's
...sibilities that might cast doubt on the departments conclusion. Firstly, the planning de...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 60, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng department has failed to consider the possibility of an increase in population...
^^
Line 7, column 425, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...pliances that are not energy efficient. It is also likely that someone who has rec...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, lastly, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2686.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49284253579 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98375711627 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.449897750511 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 838.8 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.8150434104 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.090909091 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2272727273 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.36363636364 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.34362348383 0.218282227539 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110566073966 0.0743258471296 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0748450078105 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189934849925 0.128457276422 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0598427154828 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.