Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienced twenty days with below-average temperatures, and local weather forecasters throughout the region predict that this weather pattern

In this argument, the arguer predicts that the demand for heating oil will increase and recommended[ grammatical error ] that Consolidated Industries, which major[grammatical error  ] business operation is heating oil, is worth investing in. To justify the recommendations, the arguer points out that homes in the northeastern United States used oil as the major fuel for heating,[punctuation error  ] local weather forecasters predicted [ inconsistent in tense ]cold weather will[ grammatical error ] continue for several years from the weather last year, [logically disconnected  ]and many homes have[grammatical error  ] been built in this region during the last year. However, this argument fails to be persuasive as it stands.

Firstly, the arguer simply assumes that oil is the major heating fuel because this is the traditional way in this region. However, the arguer cannot substantiate this assumption without providing evidence. It is much likely that residents here might find a better source of heating. Some clear energies are more efficient and have less pollution, while heating oil might produce gases that are unfriendly to the environment when it is burning. People might switch to a healthier and cheaper fuel instead of continuing to use oil for heating. To strengthen this argument, the author should provide more reliable evidence and rule out possible alternative explanations. If the arguer can convince that burning oil is the only proper way to get warm in this region, the argument will be significantly strengthened.

Additionally, it is improper to assume without substantiation that the weather of this region will stay cold in the future. In this case, we may wonder whether the prediction based on the weather condition of last year is dependable. For example, the weather forecast is often inaccuracies in our lives because the weather condition is always changing. What’s more, it should focus on real-time information, but not the past. Thus, the author should supply more convincing evidence to confirm this assumption.

Finally, even if the foregoing assumptions on which the conclusion is based are reasonable, the argument merely relies on the assumption that people will live in the new homes built during last year, then the demand for heating oil will increase. But we have not informed any persuasive and professional evidence. However, people built new homes but might not decide to live in because of the economy, weather, or the traffic conditions here. That means the demand for heating oil will not increase, and the investment in Consolidated Industries may be an unsuccessful decision. If so, anyone would be reluctant to accept the arguer’s recommendation.

To sum up, many obvious flaws need to be marshaled before the investment we have mentioned. Any impetuous implementation of the recommendation would be unlikely to have desired consequences.

Partial revision. This essay is confusing due to extensive grammatical errors.

In this argument, the arguer (word choice error) predicts that the demand for heating oil will increase, then (and they)  concludes (conclude) that Consolidated Industries is worth investing in because its major business operation is the retail sale of home heating oil. To justify this conclusion, the arguer points out that homes in the northeastern United States have traditionally used oil as the major fuel for heating. Then the arguer indicates that local weather forecasters predict the next several years will be cold based on the weather situation (delete) last year. The arguer also mentions that many homes were built in this region during the last year. However, this argument fails to be persuasive as it stands (why? provide some short reasoning).

Firstly, the arguer infers that the demand for heating oil will increase in this region because burning oil is the traditional way to get warm here (heat a home). In some aspects, we can predict a general situation through tradition (delete). However, residents here (delete) might find a better source of heating. Some clean energies (energy sources) are more efficient and produce less pollution while burning oil might (delete) produces gases (emissions) that are unfriendly (harmful) to the environment. (Therefore,) People might (will likely) switch to a healthier and cheaper fuel instead of continuing to use oil for heating (delete). To strengthen this argument, the author should provide more reliable evidence and rule out possible alternative explanations. If the arguer can convince (show) that burning oil is the only proper way to get warm (heat homes) in this region, the argument will (would) be significantly strengthened. (the two previous sentences repeat each other, one can be deleted)

Additionally, it is improper to assume without substantiation that the weather of this region will be (remain) cold in the next several years, which might increase the demand for heating oil (delete). In this case, we may wonder whether the weather forecast is dependable (question the reliability of weather forecast) and whether the (delete) predictions based on the (recent) weather situation of last year is dependable (delete). For example, weather forecasts are often inaccurate in our lives because the weather is always changing. Along this line, the (delete) weather forecasts should base (be based) on real-time information, but not the past, and have real-time updates (simplify). Thus, the author should supply more convincing evidence to confirm that the weather situation in the future will indeed increase the demand for heating oil.

Finally, even if the foregoing assumptions are reasonable, the argument merely relies on the assumption that people will live in the (delete) new homes built during the last year, then the increase in resident numbers will cause the demand for heating oil to rise (unclear). But we have not informed any persuasive and professional evidence. (delete) However, people might not decide to live in it because of the economic situation, weather situation, or the traffic conditions here. That means the demand for heating oil might not increase, and investment in Consolidated Industries may be an unsuccessful decision. If so, anyone would be reluctant to accept the arguer’s recommendation. (this paragraph is repetitive)

To sum up, many obvious flaws need to be marshaled before this investment (word choice error). Any impetuous implementation would be unlikely to have the desired consequences.