The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company.
“Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy. At the same time, manufacturers are now marketing many home appliances, such as refrigerators and air conditioners, that are almost twice as energy efficient as those sold a decade ago. Also, new technologies for better home insulation and passive solar heating are readily available to reduce the energy needed for home heating. Therefore, the total demand for electricity in our area will not increase—and may decline slightly. Since our three electric generating plants in operation for the past twenty years have always met our needs, construction of new generating plants will not be necessary."
While it is understandable to assume that people are eager to save energy as the large development of applicants in home and predict that the energy generated by plants is enough for the future usage of the town, the authors' assumption within such argument is tenuous due to the absence of extra evidence, making the argument weak in logic.
Firstly, the author begins with the statement that a survey supports a opinion that people are desired to save energy. Here, no information about the survey is given to indicate the effectiveness of such research. For example, what if the sample size of the survey is low, it could not conclude a convincing conclusion, or that, the age of participants in the research is limited, thus would not reflect the attitudes of people in every generations. Consequently, the writer made an unsound argument without presenting extra statistics about the survey.
Secondly, the author also mentions that the total demand of electricity in such region will not go up but will decrease instead as a result of the co-operation of people's attitude and the development of applicants used at home. The correlation between the usage of electricity and the conservation ability of devices is not so clear and linear, and it could be influenced by a number of factors. For example, in the midst of the ten years as mentioned by the author in the passage, when devices improved rapidly, does the population in such region stay constant? Does the number of applicants used and produced in families and factories stay still? The answer is unknown, the author presents no such data to prove his or her argument. If the total number of people and the type of household applicants rise along with the reduction of energy wasted, we could not precisely figure out the situation of total energy used without calculating relative data that are not found in the passage. Hence, it is suggested that the author should contain more statistics within the argument, or the argument is rife with holes.
Finally, the result of the author's reasoning is that, there would be no need to construct new generating plants in that current plants' generation ability is suited for current consumption of electricity. Such reasoning is flawed, and multiple possibilities could challenge it. Even though the author's preceding argument is right, the writer still limits his or her assumption in a specific range, a usage for living. The factories' consumption of electricity should also be seen as an important demand, and sometimes the factory requires more. The author fails to assume the future development of the area, enough electricity plants are the base of enormous population living there, and also that of companies producing energy-saving household devices. Moreover, emergencies are also ignored by the author. The author, therefore, should plan more for future, and consider the staff form a wider range, that is the way to strengthen his or her argument.
In a nutshell, the argument as the author stands in the passage is flawed due to the considerable paucity of solid evidence and several pieces of wishy-washy findings that are inaccurate. So the writer should provide more precise and comprehensive data within the passage to make the argument hold water.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-10 | Yam Kumar Oli | 59 | view |
| 2022-12-08 | abhikhanna | 69 | view |
| 2022-12-08 | myfavpear | 62 | view |
| 2022-12-08 | myfavpear | 78 | view |
| 2022-12-07 | abhikhanna | 75 | view |
- Governments should place few if any restrictions on scientific research and development 50
- The following appeared as a recommendation by a committee planning a ten year budget for the city of Calatrava The birthrate in our city is declining in fact last year s birthrate was only one half that of five years ago Thus the number of students enroll 72
- No filed of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study 83
- Colleges and universities should require their students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country 66
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls around the country The surface of a section of Route 101 paved just two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways is now badly cracked with a number of dangerous 75
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 540 350
No. of Characters: 2676 1500
No. of Different Words: 235 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.821 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.956 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.756 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 210 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.201 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.81 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.517 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 218, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...h for the future usage of the town, the authors assumption within such argument is tenu...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e, making the argument weak in logic. Firstly, the author begins with the stat...
^^^
Line 3, column 70, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...th the statement that a survey supports a opinion that people are desired to save...
^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng extra statistics about the survey. Secondly, the author also mentions that ...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t, or the argument is rife with holes. Finally, the result of the authors reaso...
^^^
Line 7, column 129, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'plants'' or 'plant's'?
Suggestion: plants'; plant's
...t new generating plants in that current plants generation ability is suited for curren...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 422, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'factories'' or 'factory's'?
Suggestion: factories'; factory's
...specific range, a usage for living. The factories consumption of electricity should also ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ay to strengthen his or her argument. In a nutshell, the argument as the autho...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, thus, while, for example, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2743.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 540.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07962962963 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82057051367 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82241359806 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461111111111 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 885.6 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.0483415397 57.8364921388 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.619047619 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7142857143 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0903037656287 0.218282227539 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0266451845659 0.0743258471296 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0278009369495 0.0701772020484 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0533055951398 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0223920308355 0.0628817314937 36% => 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: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 98.500998004 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.