The author argues that construction of new electricity generating plants is unnecessary as recent surveys indicate that people are more inclined towards conservation of energy measures and new technologies allow better home insulation and passive solar energy that reduce dependency on such plants. He further states that manufacturers are now marketing many home appliances that are “twice as energy efficient as those sold a decade ago”. However, in doing so, he inadvertently makes a few assumptions, that, if improper, dampens the persuasiveness of his argument.
First of all, the author substantiates his argument based on recent surveys that indicate that people are more inclined towards conservation of energy. However, the proclivity of people towards conserving energy might be related to other forms of energy such as fossil fuels, whose reserves are depleting with time. The idea of energy conservation might arise due to increasing costs of using energy resources which are depleting with time. As such no relation of the surveys with electricity has been ascertained by the author. The surveys might purely be focussed on other forms of energy and bear no correlation with electricity whatsoever. Hence, without further evidence which shows that the surveys take into account conservation of electrical energy, the author’s assumption that people are likely to adopt measures to reduce their dependency on electricity stands tenuous.
Secondly, the author is presumptuous in stating that since manufacturers are “marketing many home appliances” that are “twice as efficient as those sold a decade ago”, people will be willing to invest in these equipments at such short notice. People might not be willing to replace their already operational appliances with newer, efficient ones owing to the initial cost. Under such a scenario, the prediction that the energy requirements will lessen or remain same stands unwarranted. Similar is the case for better home insulation and other non-conventional measures such as solar energy. The initial cost of establishing such facilities might outweigh the cost of electricity for the home owners and therefore they might not be inclined to undergo such a change. Thus, in considering that the availability of newer, efficient technology and measures will convince the home owners to replace their old existent appliances, the author is overly presumptuous and might be erroneous in concluding that newer electricity generation plants are unnecessary.
Furthermore, the author considers consumers as the primary users of the electricity. However, he fails to substantiate this claim with enough evidence. It might be such that there are heavy industries and that home owners contribute only to a small part of the total electricity consumption. Under such a scenario, appliances used in heavy industries are not likely to change for decades. Moreover, the author sounds adamant in considering that the already present electricity generating plants, which have been operational for around two decades will not be subject to failures in the coming years. It might be that one of these get worn out due to continuous usage and a fourth electricity generating plant is required to fall back on, in order to provide continuous electricity to the consumers. Under either case, the author’s suggestion might prove to be detrimental in the long run.
In conclusion, it is possible that since surveys indicate that homeowners are inclined towards energy conservation efforts and manufacturers are marketing newer, energy efficient home appliances, the need for a new electricity generating plant is unnecessary. However, as it stands now, the argument made by the author is unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. Thus, the author needs to provide additional evidence on how the surveys correlate to conservation of electricity, how much inclined are the homeowners towards investing in newer, energy efficient technologies by replacing their existent, functional appliances and whether homeowners are the primary consumers of electricity, and whether the operational three electricity generating plants are dependable enough, in order to further his argument.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 644 350
No. of Characters: 3495 1500
No. of Different Words: 250 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.038 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.427 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.004 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 269 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 200 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 152 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 115 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.76 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.83 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.56 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.318 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 441, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” 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.
...esources which are depleting with time. As such no relation of the surveys with el...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 13.6137724551 176% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 55.5748502994 149% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3585.0 2260.96107784 159% => OK
No of words: 644.0 441.139720559 146% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.56677018634 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.0375743251 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0839944016 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 269.0 204.123752495 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.417701863354 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1156.5 705.55239521 164% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 86.4965571569 57.8364921388 150% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.4 119.503703932 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.76 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.2 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.220578216142 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0709032312781 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0587578219531 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144113258251 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516973052898 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.3799401198 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.3550499002 60% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.5979740519 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 98.500998004 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.