In order to strengthen the argument presented in the memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company, it would be necessary to provide more evidence and analysis to support the assumptions on which the argument is based.
First, the argument assumes that efforts by homeowners to conserve energy will be successful and result in a significant reduction in electricity usage. To support this assumption, the memorandum could provide evidence on the effectiveness of conservation programs and incentives in the area, as well as data on the adoption of energy-efficient technologies by homeowners. The memorandum could also consider potential barriers to conservation, such as the cost and availability of energy-efficient technologies, and assess the impact of these barriers on the success of conservation efforts.
Second, the argument assumes that the availability of more energy-efficient appliances and home heating technologies will lead to a decrease in the demand for electricity. To support this assumption, the memorandum could provide data on the energy savings achieved by these technologies, as well as information on their cost and availability. The memorandum could also consider the potential impact of other factors, such as population growth and economic development, on the demand for electricity and assess how these factors may affect the effectiveness of energy-efficient technologies in reducing energy consumption.
In addition to providing evidence and analysis to support its assumptions, the memorandum could also consider potential counterarguments to its conclusion that new electric generating plants will not be necessary. For example, the memorandum could consider the potential impact of unexpected events, such as natural disasters or power outages, on the demand for electricity and assess whether new generating plants would be necessary to meet increased demand in such situations. The memorandum could also consider the potential long-term consequences of not constructing new generating plants, such as the need to import electricity from other sources or the potential cost of constructing new plants in the future.
Overall, to strengthen the argument presented in the memorandum, it would be necessary to provide more evidence and analysis to support its assumptions, as well as consider potential counterarguments and long-term consequences of its conclusion. By doing so, the memorandum could provide a more comprehensive and compelling case for its conclusion that new electric generating plants will not be necessary
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: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 381 350
No. of Characters: 2166 1500
No. of Different Words: 133 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.418 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.685 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.42 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 145 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 119 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 87 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.818 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.917 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.476 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.714 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.171 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, may, second, so, then, well, for example, in addition, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 19.6327345309 36% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2213.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.80839895013 5.12650576532 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.49360494642 2.78398813304 125% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 204.123752495 69% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.367454068241 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 698.4 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 40.2757853913 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 184.416666667 119.503703932 154% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.75 23.324526521 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.58333333333 5.70786347227 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.136821678871 0.218282227539 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0647078207675 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0303428640822 0.0701772020484 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.093131806912 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0360910732443 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.8 14.3799401198 152% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.09 48.3550499002 48% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.1628742515 204% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.7 12.197005988 145% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.01 12.5979740519 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => 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.