"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 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 58.6224719101 82% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2009.0 2235.4752809 90% => OK
No of words: 394.0 442.535393258 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09898477157 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68222240686 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 215.323595506 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.47461928934 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 631.8 704.065955056 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4026365553 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.736842105 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7368421053 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.63157894737 5.21951772744 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 7.80617977528 102% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230003655005 0.243740707755 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0698058811368 0.0831039109588 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0794964394153 0.0758088955206 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127053573402 0.150359130593 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0620309176204 0.0667264976115 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 100.480337079 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.