In many countries, wood is the primary fuel used for heating and cooking, but wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems, and extensive use of wood causes deforestation, a major environmental problem. In contrast, charcoal, made by partially burning wood in a controlled process, is a fuel that creates less smoke than wood does. Moreover, although charcoal costs slightly more than wood, less charcoal is needed to produce the same amount of heat. Therefore, people who use wood as their primary fuel can, without experiencing economic hardship, switch to charcoal and can thereby improve their health and preserve the environment.
The author of the argument has cited that in some countries people are still using wood as their major fuel for cooking and heating and smoke generated by it causes health problems. The author also mentioned that by replacing it with charcoal can reduce smoke and health problems will be decreased. The argument might seem convincing at first glance, However, a critical analysis of the justification supplied by the author has highlighted many queries. Therefore, the premises in their current form are not cogent and the argument is rife with unwarranted assumptions which make it more susceptible to attacks.
On the first facet, the author has cited that if people will switch to charcoal then it would be a solution to major environmental problem deforestation. However, the author has failed to consider a fact that coal is also made from wood only and if people will switch to coal then also deforestation will occur. The problem is still persisting hence, there is a clear dichotomy in the author's argument and the author has failed to answer that.
Secondly, the author has mentioned that in many countries people use wood as a major fuel, but how many people are using is still a question to ask. Moreover, he has mentioned people without economic hardship can switch to coal because it is slightly costly than wood. However, if people there are not experiencing economic hardships then they can switch to LPG or PNG also. These fuels are more environmentally and health-friendly than wood or coal. There is a possibility that people who are using wood for heating and cooking are very poor. And it raises another question that, how many people in the countries are using wood? Maybe the number is very small and nearly negligible when compared to other factors resulting in deforestation, such as forest fire, builder making buildings or deforestation for making furniture.
Additionally, the author has cited that smoke generated from burning wood causes respiratory and eye problems. However, coal is also developed from processing woods and it also produces smoke. Maybe the smoke produced by burning coal is more pernicious than smoke generated by burning wood. The author has not provided any evidence about that and naively concluded just by saying it the smoke created by burning coal is less.
In the crux, the author's argument is based on unsubstantiated presumptions. The author should have reinforced his argument with evidence to make his case more convincing. However, the author has failed to check the facts that there are many other options for the people who can afford it and the problem for deforestation still persist, thereby rendering the argument indefensible.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-23 | goelchirag21 | 59 | view |
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. 75
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country."The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous 72
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country."The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous 16
- The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in 66
- "The widespread idea that people should make self-improvement a primary goal in their lives is problematic because it assumes that people are intrinsically deficient." 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 443 350
No. of Characters: 2211 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.588 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.991 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.704 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.095 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.704 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.569 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.141 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 300, 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.
... and health problems will be decreased. The argument might seem convincing at first...
^^^
Line 3, column 386, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ence, there is a clear dichotomy in the authors argument and the author has failed to a...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...hips then they can switch to LPG or PNG also. These fuels are more environmentally a...
^^^^
Line 9, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rning coal is less. In the crux, the authors argument is based on unsubstantiated pr...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, as for, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2264.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 443.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11060948081 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77221857871 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.435665914221 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 696.6 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8749958987 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.80952381 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0952380952 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42857142857 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.301132165137 0.218282227539 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10498400766 0.0743258471296 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0930269328937 0.0701772020484 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165101267124 0.128457276422 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0757818803083 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.