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."
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 author asserts that the new generating plants will not be necessary since the total demand for electricity in the area will not increase. However, the argument is unpersuasive as it is based on several questionable assumptions.
First, the author assumes that the consumers will actually reduce the energy consumption as it was indicated in the surveys. However, it is likely that the surveys were conducted to the small number of biased groups. For instance, if the survey spots were in front of the buildings of the environmental organizations or in the classes of environmental studies major, they would have agreed to reduce their energy for the protection of the earth. Therefore, the number and scope of respondents might strengthen or weaken the author's argument.
Second, it is presumed by the author that using energy efficient products will ensure the reduction in energy use. However, this is not warranted. It is unknown whether people will buy the energy efficient appliances even if it was provided at a higher price. Even when they buy the energy efficient appliances, it is possible that people become lenient about electricity use based on a strong belief that their appliances will not consume too much energy. Therefore, regardless of the marketing or selling of the energy efficient goods, it is uncertain whether the total demand will diminish. Thus, whether these appliances will be sold and actually contribute to the reduction will corroborate or damage the author's argument.
Lastly, the author asserts that the additional construction of power plant is not necessary. However, this is not evidenced as well. Considering that the three existing plants have been used for the past twenty years, it is possible that they might not be working as well as they have been. Therefore, it is not proven whether the supplies of electricity will be reliable as it used to be. Thus, the reliable supplies by the existent power plants in the future might support or refute the author's argument.
To sum up, the author's assumption that additional construction of power plants is not necessary is fallacious. The information about the number and scope of survey respondents, the actual reduction expected from the introduction of energy efficient appliances, and the reliability of the three power generators might strengthen or weaken the author's argument.
- Argument Topic: "The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced 77
- The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but by the general welfare of its people. 59
- Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed. 61
- The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 29
- The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian, a company that manufactures men's clothing."Five years ago, at a time when we had difficulties in obtaining reliable supplies of high quality wool fabric, we discontinued productio 82
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK //In GRE, we have to accept all data or evidence are true. we may say: home owners may change their life styles in the future.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK //the topic is asking: 'construction of new generating plants will not be necessary or not.' we have to suppose three existing plants are reliable. So the arguments are something like: 1. Maybe businesses and industries need more energy consumption. 2. maybe more people will move to this area, and home owners may double or triple in the future.
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 382 350
No. of Characters: 1953 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.421 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.113 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.801 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.485 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.34 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.547 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 525, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...pondents might strengthen or weaken the authors argument. Second, it is presumed by ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 711, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...eduction will corroborate or damage the authors argument. Lastly, the author asserts...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 490, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... the future might support or refute the authors argument. To sum up, the authors ass...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...the authors argument. To sum up, the authors assumption that additional construction...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 343, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nerators might strengthen or weaken the authors argument.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, lastly, second, so, then, therefore, thus, well, for instance, as well as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2003.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 382.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24345549738 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86679813806 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 204.123752495 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.429319371728 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 621.0 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.4150113255 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.421052632 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1052631579 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26315789474 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.0571781422543 0.218282227539 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0207632560254 0.0743258471296 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.016300523384 0.0701772020484 23% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0382559198151 0.128457276422 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0126641828401 0.0628817314937 20% => 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: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.