1. The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager.
"One month ago, 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. I predict that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits even more dramatically."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
In this letter, the owner of the apartment complex suggest that it’s more profitable to restrict maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be. At first glance, the inference seems reasonable, but it appears many potential omitted flaws after carefully analyzing.
To begin with, it mentioned that there are only a few complaints about low pressure within the first month of change. However, it’s likely that a little portion of people may complain immediately because of temporary change. How does he know the evaluation of the restriction for a long period? It’s possible that the apartment complex will lose some renters owing to the low quality.
On the other hand, it’s unknown about the expense of modification according to the article. It’s likely that they need to hire the high-skilled plumber and technical workers, and it’s required to double check everything beforehand, costing a large amount of money and personnel costs. What’s more, it’s inconvenient for renters to use the showerheads during the construction, then it’s responsible for the apartment to come up with the alternative packages. At that time, we’re not sure whether the total cost will outweigh the predicted marginal profit.
Last but not least, how percentage of water cost account for the total operating cost in the building? It’s possible that it actually saves a little amount of money after implementing the whole plan among all 12 buildings. Nevertheless, it’s also risk having deficit on the whole owing to unsatisfactory of renters. Another question is how the owner audaciously predicts the profit will increase dramatically in the future? It exists so many variables that make profound impact on one’s profit, such as economic, demography, and so on. Hence, it’s too optimistic to jump to this conclusion.
To sum up, it still needs more concrete data and cautious consideration before deciding to restrict the water flow in 12 buildings.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
No. of Words: 315 350
need more arguments, for example: people may take longer time to shower.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 315 350
No. of Characters: 1586 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.213 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.035 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.739 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 110 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.529 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.226 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.273 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.521 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.042 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 222, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun potential seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much potential', 'a good deal of potential'.
Suggestion: much potential; a good deal of potential
...erence seems reasonable, but it appears many potential omitted flaws after carefully analyzing...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 133, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...estrict the water flow in 12 buildings.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, then, third, such as, on the whole, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 19.6327345309 15% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1709.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 314.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44267515924 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9369015105 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.605095541401 0.468620217663 129% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.604808975 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.529411765 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4705882353 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.23529411765 5.70786347227 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196292782993 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0579302627197 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0536604214724 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112694959821 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0542672951114 0.0628817314937 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.