The city council of Town X has proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by switching all the lights in public buildings from incandescent bulbs to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The switch would be made gradually as the old incandescent bulbs burn

The author claims that the city council of Town X has proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by switching all the lights in public buildings from incandescent bulbs to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Assumptions that are noticed are the switch would be made gradually as the old incandescent bulbs burn out, and usage of LED lights burn brighter and cost no more to purchase. The switch would help Town X save money on electrical costs in the future. I shall suggests way to help evaluate the efficacy of the city council’s proposal to save money on electrical costs.

First of all, the argument assumes that usage of led bulbs would burn brighter, not all led bulbs may burn brighter, to evaluate this assumption, the sample experiment has to be taken to evaluate the statement, the led bulbs may be some duplicate. To look over led bulbs has to tested and make sure that intensity of bulb has to brighter and larger. Moreover, the
duplicate bulbs burn less brighter and low accuracy of glow.

Second the argument assumes that led bulbs cost less, this may be a wrong interpretation because not all bulbs are led which cost less. Some of other companies of bulbs cost are also less. To evaluate this assume, the tools that are used for manufacturing the led bulb, their prices and quantity has to be evaluated and taken out the reasonable cost that is being used.

Hence I conclude that city council of Town X has proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by switching all the lights in public buildings from incandescent bulbs has been approved ,if the assumptions are evaluated by the above reasoning.

Votes
Average: 3.7 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 482, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...osts in the future. I shall suggests way to help evaluate the efficacy of the cit...
^^
Line 3, column 150, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ighter, to evaluate this assumption, the sample experiment has to be taken to eva...
^^
Line 3, column 365, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...as to brighter and larger. Moreover, the duplicate bulbs burn less brighter and l...
^^^
Line 4, column 22, Rule ID: LESS_COMPARATIVE[1]
Message: Non-standard use of the comparative or superlative. Did you mean 'less bright'?
Suggestion: less bright
...r. Moreover, the duplicate bulbs burn less brighter and low accuracy of glow. Second th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... reasonable cost that is being used. Hence I conclude that city council of Town X ...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 191, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...rom incandescent bulbs has been approved ,if the assumptions are evaluated by the ...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, if, look, may, moreover, second, so, as to, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
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: 1365.0 2260.96107784 60% => OK
No of words: 277.0 441.139720559 63% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92779783394 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71732063008 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 204.123752495 62% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.458483754513 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 412.2 705.55239521 58% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 98.8382517045 57.8364921388 171% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.5 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.7 23.324526521 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6 5.70786347227 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More 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: 0.604888946931 0.218282227539 277% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.238108310064 0.0743258471296 320% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.228651798175 0.0701772020484 326% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.341137891404 0.128457276422 266% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.238463190173 0.0628817314937 379% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.3550499002 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.197005988 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 51.0 98.500998004 52% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 11 15
No. of Words: 277 350
No. of Characters: 1312 1500
No. of Different Words: 123 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.08 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.736 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.576 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 80 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 61 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.182 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.53 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.429 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.655 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.153 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5