In the memorandum from the planning department it is stated that, home owners are eager to conserve energy and there are several emerging products which are cost effective and for these two reasons author assumes that total demand of energy will decrease and there will be no need for constructing new power generating plant. So, At first glance authors argument appeals to be convincing but further reflection reveals that it is rife with hole and assumptions. Stated in this way, argument fails to consider several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated.
To begin with, the argument readily assumes that just because people are eager to conserve energy they are willing to buy the home appliances that are energy efficient without considering other several factors such as affordability, after service of the home appliances, how easily are they available in the market and are they reliable and cost effective. This argument could have been much clearer if author would have explicitly stated about people's willingness to buy these appliances at the cost of overspending and relying on the appliances to save energy.
Furthermore, the argument claims that three electric generating plants in operation have met the needs in last 20 years. This is again very weak and absurd claim as the argument does not demonstrate any statistical data of population over last 20 years. Isn't this possible that over 20 years of time frame, population has increased drastically and people currently living there face dearth of electricity. To better evaluate the argument we would need the data of people migrated in the city and the current population of that city
Finally, There are some questions that needs to be answered. How reliable was the survey? What were the questions asked to the people? Were the suggestions of citizens were taken into consideration? Also, author assumed that marketing home appliances will lead to successful sales of these devices without giving any data about sales and people using these devices. Without convincing answer to these questions, one is left with impression that the claim is more wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts like affordability of new appliances, people's willingness to buy these appliances, statistical data about population over last 20 years and will the marketing strategy effective to persuade people to buy these appliances In order to asses the situation, it is essential to have full knowledge for the above factors and without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 186, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s which are cost effective and for these two reasons author assumes that total de...
^^
Line 1, column 425, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cing but further reflection reveals that it is rife with hole and assumptions. St...
^^
Line 5, column 255, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: Isn't
... data of population over last 20 years. Isnt this possible that over 20 years of tim...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, so, then, therefore, in conclusion, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2350.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 444.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29279279279 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82673360175 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 215.323595506 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493243243243 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 744.3 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 118.305863522 60.3974514979 196% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.875 118.986275619 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.75 23.4991977007 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.375 5.21951772744 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131384295222 0.243740707755 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0391021416137 0.0831039109588 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.059652326263 0.0758088955206 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0750310758424 0.150359130593 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0618688612987 0.0667264976115 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 14.1392134831 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.