"Last week, all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be. Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. Clearly, modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits further."
The author of the argument concludes that to restrict the water flow showers should be modified in all the buildings in the Sunnyside towers resulting in the increase of profits. To support this conclusion author cites various premises; readings of water usage reduction, less number of complaints and increase in profits of the people. At first sight these premises seem to bolster the argument but meticulous analysis shows otherwise. The reasons that lead to the failure of the argument are explained as following;
Firstly, the author stated that modified showers will reduce the water usage to one third. However, no supporting evidence has been given in favor of this. As the actual readings on the water usage before and after the modifications of showers are not given one cannot say that it will definitely reduce the water usage. This statement was totally biased, as there is the possibility that modification results may be completely opposite than expected. Thus on the basis of such statement one cannot say that we should go for modification of showers in all the houses.
Secondly, the author claimed that very few complaints have been reported. Since the modified showers has been just operated only in three houses. Which is a very small number to be encountered, as there may be the possibility that people had used those modified showers only for a short period of time in the long run there are the chances that further problems might occur. And there are chances that people hadn't noticed the problems.
Thirdly, the author assumes that by operating modified showers will result in profits for corporation as corporation pays bill for water usage. But this is certainly not true, as it may possible that introduction of the modified showers may be a costlier process as no information about their operating cost is provided. There is the probability that in long run their maintaining cost may be more rather than paying water bills, which results in loss. Thus this premise weakens the argument.
At the end, the author's argument fails to hold the ground due to unwarranted assumptions. The author must have provide some additional information like the reading of water usage in modified showers, operating and maintenance cost of these showers and some more. Due to lack information provided and based on unwarranted assumptions the author's argument proved to be fallacious.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 453, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...y be completely opposite than expected. Thus on the basis of such statement one cann...
^^^^
Line 3, column 74, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...very few complaints have been reported. Since the modified showers has been just oper...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 287, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...those modified showers only for a short period of time in the long run there are the chances t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 409, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hadn't
...ccur. And there are chances that people hadnt noticed the problems. Thirdly, the aut...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 453, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ing water bills, which results in loss. Thus this premise weakens the argument. At ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... weakens the argument. At the end, the authors argument fails to hold the ground due t...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 111, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...anted assumptions. The author must have provide some additional information like the re...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 337, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nd based on unwarranted assumptions the authors argument proved to be fallacious.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2009.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 394.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09898477157 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68222240686 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.47461928934 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 631.8 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4026365553 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.736842105 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7368421053 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.63157894737 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
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: 0.230003655005 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0698058811368 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0794964394153 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127053573402 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0620309176204 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.