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 allows the investors to more than offset the cost over time. There is no denying that the initial cost of solar installation is a burden on the investor. In strenuous economic times, both businesses and homeowners might be reluctant to make the investment due to 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 it ought to be more actively pursued.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The argument makes the conclusion that a feed-in tariff plan should be more actively pursued, due to its stability and efficacy. The author of the argument bases this conclusion on the premise of different research efforts, without stating any explicit details. The argument, in doing so, makes multiple unstated assumptions and is significantly less persuasive than if these assumptions were addressed. There are three such unstated assumptions that must be discussed further, to evaluate the argument.
First, the argument assumes that the research study considered all the economic possibilities. The research has been stated to have shown the stability and efficacy of the feed-in tariff plan, but it may have done so in an idealistic sense. It is possible that the research did not consider scenarios of economic decline. In this case, the homeowner may not get the desired payout, and electricity companies may also be going through an economic dip. If the research did not consider these worries that business owners and homeowners have, then it fails to address the very issue. By not doing so, any efforts to actively pursue a feed-in tariff plan would have no takers.
Second, the argument assumes that the investment-payout time frame would be feasible for individual homeowners. However, it may be the case that the research failed to consider a significant number of homeowners in their study; this would not be a fairly constructed sample space. Assuming that the participants (or the data points) in the research study were representative of the public is incorrect, based on the information provided in the argument. If a representative group of homeowners were not properly considered during the research, it may be possible that there are many people who, although may benefit from the plan over time, may not have the capital to make the huge initial investment. Also, by not stating how big the initial investment exactly is, the author ignores the possibility of the costs being, perhaps, too high even for a small business.
Third, the argument fails to consider the possibility of the research study's scale of conduction of the study, i.e., it may be possible that the research has concluded that the feed-in tariff plan is viable and effective on the long-term. This long-term viability or efficacy would mean little to investors who do not have significant capital. Since the payout takes time to fulfil the initial investment costs, there are many investors whom the research study may have not considered: Small businesses, or people who are just looking for alternative modes of income. It is not uncommon for people looking for alternative modes of income not having the greatest amounts of wealth, working multiple jobs to try and alleviate their situations. For them, this plan may seem like a tempting one, but actively pursuing such people to invest in it may be dangerous, given the state of the economy and enormous initial costs.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to a number of unstated assumptions that it never addresses. If the research study was comprehensive, or its findings were stated in the argument, the author could have strengthened their position. Given the current state of the argument, adhering to its claims without consulting a more thorough study would be devastating at worst, and specious at best.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-07 | Technoblade | 59 | view |
| 2020-05-01 | elisabetta_fedele | 58 | view |
| 2019-12-26 | RamyaP | 56 | view |
- 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 Electrici 59
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company For the first time in ten years a company that has developed satellite te 58
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and sup 85
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr Karp an anthropologist Twenty years ago Dr Field a noted anthropologist visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather tha 60
- The following appeared in a health newsletter A ten year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets whereas today that number i 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 553 350
No. of Characters: 2776 1500
No. of Different Words: 242 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.849 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.02 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.776 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 203 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 164 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 125 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.043 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.019 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.652 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.528 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 263, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
..., without stating any explicit details. The argument, in doing so, makes multiple u...
^^^
Line 7, column 707, Rule ID: TRY_AND[1]
Message: "Try and" is common in colloquial speech, but "'try to'" is recommended for writing.
Suggestion: try to
...nts of wealth, working multiple jobs to try and alleviate their situations. For them, t...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, second, so, then, third, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2857.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 552.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17572463768 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84713113593 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84365994541 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463768115942 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 891.0 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.0245248716 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.217391304 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.47826086957 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.088368931407 0.218282227539 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0295629261259 0.0743258471296 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0229849573107 0.0701772020484 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0523787834901 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0228476149123 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: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 98.500998004 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.