One increasingly popular policy for promoting renewable energy is a feed-in tariff. Under such a policy, investors on any scale, from large corporations to individual homeowners, produce their own energy from solar panels installed on their property. Electricity companies are then required to purchase the energy through a long-term contract at an increased rate that would allow the investors to more than offset the cost over time. There is no denying that the initial cost of solar installation would be a burden on the investor. In strenuous economic times, both businesses and homeowners might be reluctant to make the investment, with concern that the payout could be less than sufficient or the plan might prove unfeasible. However, research has shown that a feed-in tariff plan is not only stable but also exceptionally effective, and ought to be more actively pursued.
The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, it is based on unwarranted assumption that popular policy for promoting renewable energy is feed-in tariff, rendering its main conclusion that feed-in tariff plan is stable, exceptionally effective, ought to be more effectively pursued, invalid. Indeed, if these assumptions hold untrue, the argument falls apart completely.
The argument fails to justify what kind of research has shown that a feed-in tariff is stable and effective. For one, what does author mean by stability. Are the solar panels durable? Or they do not wear out easily? Also author provides no information on how effective is this scheme. To justify the effectiveness of feed-in tariff author must compare the situation with many other technologies. Considering, there pros and cons. Just one study will not give adequate results. Its effectiveness can be measured if comparison is done on several such schemes.
Furthermore, the argument is based on unanswered questions of research. For one, it could be that research is done in very small area, where the presence of sunlight is also effective. Even if there is sunlight people should is financially strong to opt for this plan. The argument had been strong if the author mentioned about the number of people who would like to implement, there income. Also, if there is income is high people are actually implementing the plan.
Additionally, the argument assumes that plan will be effectively pursued. Maybe user of the plan find it ineffective, due to often bad weather conditions. For it to be effective sunlight is must. If the scheme is for area which has 9 months rain and 3 months winter, with rare sunlight this scheme would be highly ineffective.
Finally, the argument assumes that electricity companies will definitely purchase the energy that to at long term contract at an increased rate. Maybe these companies can find the same stuff at cheap rate from other place. Also, if companies nullified the contract in between. The author didn't consider these factors, which are important to consider. The argument does nothing to even persuade the user who are already reluctant to buy the scheme. It's assuming people will buy it even if they do not have money.
Because of the several unwarranted assumptions in the argument, the author fails to provide convincing case that scheme is effective. The author need to study various factor majorly effecting the conclusion. This will include weather condition, geographical conditions. Financial status of people. What returns will this scheme provide actual stated number. Without this knowledge the argument is very weak.
Also, if there is income is high people are actually implementing the plan.
Description: can you re-write this sentence?
----------------
argument 1 -- not OK. Yes, 'research has shown that a feed-in tariff plan is not only stable but also exceptionally effective', but where has the research taken place?
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- duplicated to argument 2. better: There is a possibility that the rest costs of the plant like the maintenance fee would be as high as its initial ones.
argument 4 -- not OK. read here: 'Electricity companies are then required to purchase the energy through a long-term contract at an increased rate...', it means for sure the electricity companies will definitely purchase the energy. The flaw lies on the rate, suppose the rate from Electricity companies is less than bank interest, then the investors may lose money.
-----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 33 15
No. of Words: 428 350
No. of Characters: 2183 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.548 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.1 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.673 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 168 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 12.97 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.635 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.394 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.234 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.433 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.034 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5