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.
In the argument the author has cited some facts and comes to the conclusion that there is no need to build new generating plants. However, the argument is rife with holes and unwarranted assumptions, and hence, not enough strong to buttress the preceded conclusion.
First of all, the argument is based on an assumption that the home owner surveyed is representative of the overall group residents in the city.Yet no evidence has been provided to corroborate that. Perhaps the sample size is very small that not enough to draw the conclusion.Or, perhaps, all of these home owners are the member of an environmental protection organization, thereby have a good sense of conserving energy, but the number of them is no more than 10. Any of these scenarios, if true, will render the survey uncredible.
Secondly, the author set an assumption on the basis of that residents of this city would like to replace their old refrigerators and air conditions with the efficient one. Since there is no piece of evidence to substantiate this assumption, it is possible that the new refrigerators is more expensive than the old that few residents could afford it.
Additionly, the author has taken for granted that the new technologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating would be useful. However, this is not necessarily the case, the new technologies might not mature enough to put into practice.
Finally, even if the author can substantiate all of foregoing assumption, in asserting that it is unnecessary to build new generating plants, the author overlooks the possibility that there are lots of factories that could be responsible for the huge electricity consumption in this city. Even if there is no such kind of factory, the author should provide evidence to rule out the possibility that the demands to electricity of nowadays family have been increased a lot.
To recapitulate, it is clear that there are still some unexplored avenues in the argument due to which the conclusion is untenable. It would be wise to address those areas prior to setting any firm conclusion ob the matter
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 144, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Yet
...the overall group residents in the city.Yet no evidence has been provided to corrob...
^^^
Line 3, column 276, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Or
... that not enough to draw the conclusion.Or, perhaps, all of these home owners are ...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'still', 'kind of', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.212598425197 0.25644967241 83% => OK
Verbs: 0.160104986877 0.15541462614 103% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0944881889764 0.0836205057962 113% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0603674540682 0.0520304965353 116% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0183727034121 0.0272364105082 67% => OK
Prepositions: 0.115485564304 0.125424944231 92% => OK
Participles: 0.0393700787402 0.0416121511921 95% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.96203291144 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0393700787402 0.026700313972 147% => OK
Particles: 0.00262467191601 0.001811407834 145% => OK
Determiners: 0.152230971129 0.113004496875 135% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0236220472441 0.0255425247493 92% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00524934383202 0.0127820249294 41% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2110.0 2731.13054187 77% => OK
No of words: 349.0 446.07635468 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.04584527221 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.57801047555 94% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.318051575931 0.378187486979 84% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.252148997135 0.287650121315 88% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.206303724928 0.208842608468 99% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.151862464183 0.135150697306 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96203291144 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 207.018472906 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.518624641834 0.469332199767 111% => OK
Word variations: 55.0888737696 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 13.0 20.039408867 65% => OK
Sentence length: 26.8461538462 23.2022227129 116% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.173726812 57.7814097925 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.307692308 141.986410481 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8461538462 23.2022227129 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 0.724660767414 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 52.0610535596 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.53846153846 1.8405768891 84% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336435997296 0.441005458295 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.157076579229 0.135418324435 116% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0745051984032 0.0829849096947 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.745747429102 0.58762219726 127% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.10585260629 0.147661913831 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.175857014117 0.193483328276 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.061689357043 0.0970749176394 64% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.357236197114 0.42659136922 84% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0722157657862 0.0774707102158 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.224578532409 0.312017818177 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0532083410128 0.0698173142475 76% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.