In this memo of a power company, the author points out his conclusion that the demand for energy will not increase and thus, establishing a new power plant is not necessary. He holds that opinion based on a survey that indicates the rise of marketing energy-saving home appliances, as well as the fact that technology is effective in reducing the need for home heating. However, the author is standing on some weak assumptions which lack enough support. Thus, his conclusion is unpersuasive and disputable.
To start with, the author assumes that people nowadays are purchasing more energy-saving home appliances, which would lead to a significant reduction in energy demand. Whereas the passage only mentions the consumer’s awareness of energy-efficient is improving and manufacturers are advocating on their promotions for these products, leaving the question: whether the actual purchase of these energy-efficient products is increasing or not? We cannot find an answer from his evidence. Probably his evidences are true, while due to the high price of energy-saving products, people’s consuming behavior is not changed and they are more willing to buy the cheap and energy-costive product. In this case, the demand for energy might not be reduced.
Furthermore, the argument holds a fallacious assumption that the reduction in home heating energy represent the holistic decrease in energy-consumption. Indeed, the new technology would greatly contribute to the saving of home heating. Seems that there is a variety sources of energy consumption, like lighting, machinery, wind etc. that should be taken into consideration. Only by substantiating the decline in heat is not strong enough to draw a conclusion that demand for energy might decline slightly.
Finally, the author assumes that the capacity of his plant will remain the same and the needs will not increase either. Let us suppose his assumption for future demand is valid. Simply by ignoring the possibility that 3 electric generating plants will keep providing identical supply is doubtful. The author forgets to take a look at the facilities and labor force at plant. Are these elements meeting the requirement to remain a consistent supply capacity? Only until the author justifies the sustaining level of demand and a consistent supply of the 3 plants, can we confidently claim that an additional power generating plant is not necessary.
To summarize, the author’s speculations lack enough evidences, and would lead to incorrect conclusion. To strengthen it, the author needs to evaluate other aspects which would impact on the demand and supply of energy. Without giving an overall assessment of all possible situations, the conclusion by opposing the construction of a new plant is not convincible.
- Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leader must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently 83
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position 88
- Progress should be the aim of any great society. People too often cling unnecessarily to obsolete ways of thinking and acting because of both a high comfort level and a fear of the unknown. 50
- 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 appli 58
- The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you t 70
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not exactly
argument 3 -- not exactly
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 435 350
No. of Characters: 2287 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.567 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.257 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.034 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.773 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.538 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.455 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.301 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, furthermore, however, if, look, so, then, thus, well, whereas, while, as well as, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2359.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42298850575 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19194057092 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51724137931 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 731.7 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 59.1405681854 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.565217391 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9130434783 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73913043478 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.120949145384 0.218282227539 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0335786540799 0.0743258471296 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0355235480276 0.0701772020484 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0591993149787 0.128457276422 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.039018216512 0.0628817314937 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.