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.
The author argue that feed-in tariff policy will be efficient enough to be use by every investor or homeowner by asking them to install solar panels on their property. While this policy seems promising, the author argument is not strong enough.
First, the author did not state a clear image of the cost of installing the solar panel. Many homeowners and small businesses owners may lack the sufficient fund to cover the cost, so it is logical to assume that this policy will be valid for every single homeowner and business owner. Moreover, many properties location might not be suitable enough for collecting solar energy. In order to be efficient, solar panels should be placed on specific location where solar energy can be collected practically.
Second, the author build his bold assumptions about the stability and feasibility of the policy on a research's recommendations. However, he did not prove the research's liability and validity. For example, the research might be conducted on specific areas where the solar energy is stable and effective to be collected, or there might other research, which are more valid and representative, revealed different results.
Finally, the author stated that electric companies are required to purchase the energy through long-term contract at increased rate. This statement is rife with holes, how can the electric companies buy energy which could be less than sufficient and it is not prove to be profitable, and even more, with increasing rate.without a doubt, electric companies will not involve in such agreement.
In conclusion, while it is critical to increase the employment of renewable energy on different aspects of life, people will not involve in any action if it is not prove to be practical.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-03-03 | adhgna@gmail.com | 42 | view |
| 2018-11-10 | jaychakalasiya | 82 | view |
| 2018-10-08 | Ap1397 | 37 | view |
| 2018-10-07 | Ap1397 | 37 | view |
| 2018-03-17 | Alvi Jawad | 69 | view |
- Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. 58
- Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your 54
- Scientific theories which people most consider as facts almost prove to be inaccurate thus one should look upon any information describe as factual with skeptism since it may well be proven false in future. 33
- In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people. 50
- 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. 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly. better to say: maybe even a long-term contract at an increased rate is not good enough for investors.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 284 350
No. of Characters: 1436 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.105 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.056 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.689 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 107 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 74 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.258 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.662 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 12, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
The author argue that feed-in tariff policy will be effi...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 302, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'properties'' or 'property's'?
Suggestion: properties'; property's
...wner and business owner. Moreover, many properties location might not be suitable enough f...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 261, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'proved', 'proven'.
Suggestion: proved; proven
...d be less than sufficient and it is not prove to be profitable, and even more, with i...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 165, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'proved', 'proven'.
Suggestion: proved; proven
... not involve in any action if it is not prove to be practical.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 55.5748502994 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1484.0 2260.96107784 66% => OK
No of words: 284.0 441.139720559 64% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22535211268 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78778971121 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.556338028169 0.468620217663 119% => OK
syllable_count: 469.8 705.55239521 67% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.5333706607 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.666666667 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.41666666667 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.174256351532 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0675815977532 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0515850448709 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103239836004 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0400316777539 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.