The city council of Town X has proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by switching all the lights
in public buildings from incandescent bulbs to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The switch would be made
gradually as the old incandescent bulbs burn out, and the city council reasons that since LED lights burn
brighter and cost no more to purchase, the switch would help Town X save money on electrical costs in the
future
The council proposes reducing electric expenses by changing from one type of light bulb to another over time. While the council provides two reasons why this could help to save money, only one is a potential support (the fact that the new bulbs burn more brightly). The other reason, that the LED bulbs cost no more to purchase, does not help to save money; rather, it only shows that the town will not spend more money to purchase the bulbs. Further, the one supporting fact may or may not result in a cost savings — we don’t have enough information to tell for sure. The initial cost to purchase the new bulbs is the same, but this is only one of the costs associated with lighting. The bulk of the cost is incurred over time, as the bulbs are used. Do the new bulbs use the same amount of electricity to run? The argument mentions that they’re brighter; perhaps they use more energy? If so, then the electrical costs could actually increase over time, not decrease — the opposite of what the council expects. Further, do the new bulbs last as long as the old ones? If they last longer, then costs might decrease; if they burn out more quickly, however, then costs could increase. The council’s plan is to replace the incandescent bulbs with the new LEDs over time, as the old ones burn out. Is it possible to make a direct replacement without incurring any extra costs? Will the new bulbs fit into the old fixtures, and do they use the same type of electrical connection? If not, there could be a significant cost associated with retrofitting the fixtures in order to accommodate the new type of bulb — and that would be made more complicated by the plan to replace the bulbs gradually as they burn out. If one fixture has three incandescent bulbs, and one burns out, and if that fixture would need to be retrofitted in order to be able to take an LED, can you retrofit only one portion of the fixture? Likely not, so now, in addition to the cost of retrofitting, we will also be tossing out two perfectly good incandescent bulbs in order to switch to LEDs. Finally, are there any other drawbacks associated with switching from the old bulbs to the new that might add to the costs or reduce the efficacy of the new bulbs? For instance, perhaps the new lights, which burn more brightly, also emit a larger amount of heat, which might cause the building to have to increase the usage of air conditioning, thereby increasing electricity costs (albeit from a different source). Possible unintended consequences need to be addressed before implementing such a plan, or the council might find itself with a surprise on its next electric bill. The plan presented by the council includes just one piece of evidence intended to support the idea that electric costs will decrease, and even that piece of evidence is suspect (as we saw, the fact that the LEDs burn more brightly might mean that they actually use more energy!). While it may ultimately be the case that the plan is sound and will save Town X money, we cannot conclude this from the argument as it stands now. There are simply too many unexplored variables, including total cost, not just replacement cost, and possible drawbacks, including retrofitting or other unexpected consequences, that could actually result in increased costs
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, however, if, may, so, then, while, for instance, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.4196629213 193% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2726.0 2235.4752809 122% => OK
No of words: 580.0 442.535393258 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.7 5.05705443957 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90746259869 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56360468199 2.79657885939 92% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437931034483 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 846.9 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 3.10617977528 290% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.6127095234 60.3974514979 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.909090909 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3636363636 23.4991977007 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.09090909091 5.21951772744 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 4.97078651685 20% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.239623062431 0.243740707755 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0843233309014 0.0831039109588 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0701649540541 0.0758088955206 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.239623062431 0.150359130593 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0667264976115 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.8420337079 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.28 12.1639044944 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.38706741573 93% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.