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.
According to memo of the planning department of an electric power firm, the company does not require new generating plants, and their three generetic plants is enough for their necessities. He elaborates on his argument by providing several evidents. First of all, he states that owners of home have interests for conserving energies. Secondly, he mentions that novel home appliances including refrigerators and air conditioners use less energy than older ones. Moreover, it is posited that greater application of insulation and solar energy for heating reduce electricity usage in their area. However, before this recommendation properly evaluated, unstated and stated assumptions, which influence original argument should be indicated.
First of all, it is stated that some surveys have found that home owners have solicity for conserving energy. However, we do not know about these studies, since their reliability and coverance can affect coherency of the argument. It is possible that studies conducted on a few home owners or these home owners do not have possesions in this area. Further, there is possibility that number of surveys are not enough to make generaliztaion for entire area. If one of these scenarios has merit, it means that original argument will weaken since it is based on this assumption.
Secondly, the arguer points out that manufacturers sell energy efficient home appliances, which will decline demand of electricity in their area. Although, these home appliances can reduce energy usage, there is no knowledge about their popularity among people who live in this area. It is possible that they are expensive; hence, people do not buy them even though they promise lower electricity expenses. Furthermore, there is possibility that people do not believe these promises and they do not prefer to have them. Therefore, it is clear that the author does not give information about preferences of residents of this area. However, this knowledge can change credility of argument due to its dependence on it.
Thirdly, in the proposal, it is posited that companies’ electric generating plants, which have been used for twenty years can be enough for their needs. However, there is no knowledge about life time of electric generating plants. It is possible that they are old-fashioned and they should be renewaled in order to encounter their requirements. Nevertheless, the arguer does not provide information about their current situation.
In conclusion, this argument proposed by planning department has flawns due to its reliance on unstated and stated weak assumptions. The arguer should explain details about stated assumptions such as quantity and quality of surveys, and percent of residenst who use or want to use new home appliances. Moreover, owner of the argument ought to provide more information about recent condition of electic generating plants before decide for new generating plants.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 457 350
No. of Characters: 2408 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.624 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.269 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.778 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 105 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.042 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.817 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.293 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.486 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 190, Rule ID: LIFE_TIME[1]
Message: Did you mean 'lifetime'?
Suggestion: lifetime
...s. However, there is no knowledge about life time of electric generating plants. It is po...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 59.0 28.8173652695 205% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2477.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 457.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42013129103 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88476828578 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485776805252 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 793.8 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 4.96107784431 302% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.7786976433 57.8364921388 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 103.208333333 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0416666667 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.20833333333 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169941156458 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0509923015876 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0496981720804 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0992928525896 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0441507015119 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.