The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client.
"Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienced twenty days with below-average temperatures, and local weather forecasters throughout the region predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes have been built in this region during the past year. Based on these developments, we predict a large increase in the demand for heating oil. Therefore, we recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The writer of this letter believes that there will be a huge increase in heating oil demand for the adverse winter to come in the region; therefore, he has adjured people to invest in consolidated business, which focuses on retail sales of home heating oil. And in addition, he has cited local weather forecasters in an attempt to shore up his claim: the asperity of winter will rise in the years to come ensuing rise in heating oil demand. The premises supplied by him might be true; clearly, however, on meticulous analysis, the argument is inadequate, because it is truly devoid of required amount of hard-facts and the associated information, which is required for a robust argument. As a result, the assumption - and finally put forwarded recommendation too - sounds out-and-out skeptical. For this reason, before I accede to the recommendation, to be sure, I have following questions.
Firstly, and probably most importantly, if we read between the lines a little, we find that the writer has unfairly assumed that whatever the local weather forecasters claim have hundred percent certainty. To be clear, what are the basis based on which he has believed that those forecaster's claim is true? First of all, these methodologies of forecasting are based on probability: for example, this winter has high probability of being more adverse. This is probability, which means there is such "chance" to happen a particular phenomenon. Further, In developing countries, forecasters are found to use out-dated machines for which validity of such forecasting is often challenged and hence this claim might also be made based on such faulty methodologies and equipment. Thus, the writer should answer the aforementioned question which will help him to make his argument more robust and trustworthy.
Furthermore, the writer puts off that owing to the new buildings and developments in the region, oil demand will rise during the winter: he assumes that newly settled people will find no alternative of the heating oil for the purpose of heating, during the winter. To be sure, why the writer believes that only heating oil is going to be the dominant heating means in the region? Due to increased technological discoveries, there might be several alternatives to oil in the market - like electric heater. In this context, people might prefer electric heater to oil, because heater operates producing no smoke, whereas oil produces smokes and deteriorate one's health too. So, the writer should answer in more detail about the alternatives of oil in the local market and their limitations over oil. This will make his assertion more scientific and veracious.
To recapitulate, many specifics are yet to be elucidated, regarding the recommendation put forwarded by the writer. He should not, so comfortably, assume that whatever weather casters' claim are like axiom, which needs no verification so-much as he should explicate the validity of their study as well to innervate his opinion. Finally, he ought to answer the questions raised above in order to convince us the validity of his argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 180, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a hundred'.
Suggestion: a hundred
...he local weather forecasters claim have hundred percent certainty. To be clear, what ar...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 656, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...eas oil produces smokes and deteriorate ones health too. So, the writer should answe...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, regarding, so, therefore, thus, well, whereas, for example, in addition, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2607.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 500.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.214 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99565774965 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 825.3 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.002999925 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.35 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.1 5.70786347227 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118130999619 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0375623886222 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0374490957093 0.0701772020484 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0716154147161 0.128457276422 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0435419380993 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 98.500998004 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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: 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.