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 argument is based on several fallacious assumptions and fails to provide substantive evidences to support them. It unwarrantedly assumes that investors of solar panels will be able to reap enough profit to offset the initial high cost while summarily disregarding important factors such as the nature of the energy, time duration of the contracts and ambiguity of the research results, rendering its main conclusion, that the feed-in-tariff system needs to be more actively pursued, invalid.
The argument fails to provide any justification that, even under strenuous circumstances, investors will be willing and prosperous enough to invest in solar energy. Just as individual investors, the initial cost can be equally high for large companies and the results can be in just as much risk. There is no telling what the results of a feed-in-tariff contract would be after 2 years, as there can be myriad of reasons that can cause the contract to cease or be compromised heavily. In fact, because of all the risks and initial high cost, no one, including individual and large corporations might even be interested in the system at all. Had the argument provided any justification that the profits will undoubtedly offset the high initial cost, then we could get further insight onto the matter. Even then, it would have to prove that the companies and individuals are interested to invest in the solar panel business at all.
There is also another concerning fact regarding the ambiguity of the research and its results. For one, the research doesn't tell us on which group people it was based on. Maybe, it was done on only people related to large corporations or people that already had a high enough capital who could sustain the business even through loss of profit during the first few years. But, then the argument doesn't hold true in any of the cases regarding an individual investor. Additionally, the research also gives information about "stable" and "exceptionally effective" plans, but both of the terms are sufficiently vague in their nature because they don't explain actually what makes the plan "stable" or "exceptionally effective". if we had more information about the people on which the research was based on and concrete interpretation of the terms, the argument could be further strengthened.
Finally, the argument assumes that a new kind of energy, which is solar energy is becoming increasingly popular. But for all we know, its not yet established as an alternate energy source to the standard non-renewable one and what might be considered popular today, might not be the same one year from now. For all we know, the business could totally fall apart because of numerous other dificulties other than ample capital or public interest. Furthermore, we have no evidence to prove that solar energy will continue to be popular and thus make substantial returns as the argument assumes it to do. The argument, therefore, needs to strengthen its claims by providing further evidences concerning the continuing popularity of the solar panel and its basis of the feed-in-tariff system.
Thus, the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions and until further evidence is provided to strengthen them, these assumptions severely undermine the argument presented.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: For all we know, the business could totally fall apart because of numerous other dificulties other than ample capital or public interest.
Error: dificulties Suggestion: difficulties
----------------------
flaws:
In this essay, we mainly argue against this:
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.
1. research in what time
2. research in which location/city/area
3. research for which people
4. research in which condition
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 371 350
No. of Characters: 1779 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.389 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.795 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.619 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 121 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.538 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.81 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.846 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.405 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.215 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 532 350
No. of Characters: 2692 1500
No. of Different Words: 240 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.803 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.06 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.868 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 153 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.929 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.15 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 118, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... and its results. For one, the research doesnt tell us on which group people it was ba...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 395, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...first few years. But, then the argument doesnt hold true in any of the cases regarding...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 662, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ntly vague in their nature because they dont explain actually what makes the plan &a...
^^^^
Line 5, column 763, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: If
...or 'exceptionally effective'. if we had more information about the peopl...
^^
Line 7, column 135, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...reasingly popular. But for all we know, its not yet established as an alternate ene...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, while, in conclusion, in fact, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2805.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 529.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30245746692 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79583152331 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13972098272 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.47258979206 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 878.4 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.2142946896 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.25 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.45 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.2 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.169031639159 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0532450164594 0.0743258471296 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.043277927556 0.0701772020484 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0829271023887 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0623922759995 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 14.3799401198 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.