luma, lime pls rate argument..

[THYAG]

hi..this is my improvemnt over my first argument.Also can you please try to "rate it"
Thanks

“Fifteen years ago, PineCity launched an electricity-conservation program that reimbursed residents some of the cost for replacing energy-wasteful motors, home office equipment, and home appliances with energy-efficient ones. For ten years, spending on this program increased annually, and annual total energy consumption declined. But spending on the program began to decline five years ago, and since then PineCity's total electricity consumption has increased sharply. If this increased usage continues, the city will have to build a costly new power plant. Obviously the best way to avoid this expense is to increase reimbursement to residents for replacing energy-wasteful equipment. This will reduce energy usage to the levels of five years ago.”

The argument stating the electricity conservation program implemented by PineCity as a means to reduce energy usage by reimbursing residents some of the cost of replacing energy wasteful appliances with energy efficient ones is not cogent. The details supporting this fact are stated below.


Firstly, the causal relationship between cost reimbursement for energy efficient devices and total energy consumption is not strong. No evidence or statistics are provided as to how much the energy consumption decreased. Also to prove that the cost reimbursement program was the cause of decline in electricity consumption, the argument needs to state whether other cities who did not implement such programs did not see such reduction in electricity consumption. It might have probably been that all cities showed a general trend towards reduction in consumption in which case the electricity conservation program implemented was not effective.


Moreover, another flaw evident in this argument is that the increase in consumption has no evidence supporting the fact that the rise in consumption was purely due to reduction in investment in the program five years ago. The reason could be availability of cheap energy wasteful devices and reduction in awareness.

As the current market rates go, the rates of buying energy wasteful devices is so much cheaper compared to buying energy wasteful ones. To quote an example, an incandescent bulb costs 1$ whereas a compact fluorescent lamp(energy efficient) would cost a whopping 7$.Though the initial investment might be far less than long term costs but people are lured to buy the cheap energy wasteful ones.

Considering the issue of awareness, awareness might have been more when the program was launched and reduced over the years which could have also attributed to a rise in consumption.

Another fact that needs to be assessed is the percentage of cost that was reimbursed. Nothing about this figure has been stated in the argument. This is a vital point; if the cost of reimbursement was not very attractive this programme was bound to fail.

Finally, the conclusion that the author is trying to make that to reduce consumption much needs to be spent on the reimbursement is mot correct due to the above stated reasons. The argument could be made cogent with supporting facts on statistics of power consumption of pine city and other cities as well with similar demographics, the awareness amongst denizen throughout the 15 years and the amount that was actually reimbursed.

[Luma]

This essay is better than the previous one.

Here are my comments:

First paragraph:
It is good that you reinstated the argument, however, you need to write one or two statements describing in what sense the arguement is not cognitive.
Again, don't use phrases like "stated below, mentioned above". I feel that you can't help not writing them

Second paragraph:
"No evidence or statistics are provided as to how much the energy consumption decreased"- this part is unclear, maybe you meant "The argument does not provide evidence or statistics that accurately speciy the amount by which the energy consumption was decreased."
"Also to prove ..."- you can't start a new statement like this, you need subject and verb or you can combine this statement with previous by using an appropriate linking word.

Third paragraph:
"another flaw evident" omit evident

Paragraphs four and five:
Don't provide examples or conclusions of your own. In this task, you are only required to analyze the argument, refute the conclusion and explains why the assumptions are invalid.

Last paragraph:
I slightly modified the following sentece: " ...the conclusion the author is trying to make that by reducing consumption and increasing reimbursement amount to residents is not correct where it stands"
I removed the phrase "above stated"

Good Luck!