35) 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 the letter from the owner, the author concludes that, by restricting flow of water through the showerheads in rest of the buildings, water bills can be significantly saved. The conclusion is drawn on basis of premise: result of implementation in first three apartments. Before fully evaluating the recommendation, three questions need to be answered.
Firstly, will the restriction in maximum water flow result in low consumption of water? The author, fallaciously, assumes that by restricting maximum flow will result in low consumption of water by the dwellers. However, this might not be the case. It is possible that users in the three buildings collect water before bathing due to low water pressure. It may be possible that the pressure is sufficient for the most of the users and only few of them experience low water pressure in showerheads. Conceivably, it might be possible that they use tap instead of showerhead for bathing. For all we know, use of tap might increase the water consumptions by the people. If any of the following scenario has merit, then the conclusion drawn from original argument is seriously flawed.
Secondly, what proportion of total cost of the corporation comes from water bill? The author fails to give evidence regarding significance of water bill on overall cost of the corporation assuming that water bills are indispensable in accounting the overall cost. This, however, might not be true. For instance, normal water bill could be too low and it is redundant comparing total cost of the corporation. Perhaps, cost implementing the recommendation (installing the water valves and restricting devices) outweigh the saving so overestimating the water bill may even lead to hampering overall growth of the company. If either of above is true then argument does not hold water.
Finally even if the author provides evidences regarding above questions, will the consumers there continue live in the apartment after they impose the law? The author speciously claims that the consumers will not be enraged by this policy. This may not be the case. This implementation may cause irritation in the dwellers and may leave the housing. For all we know, the house dwellers may find new housing companies with better water facilities. If any of the above is true, then the recommendation can be outright rejected.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands, has rife of holes and flaws as it relies on several unwarranted assumptions. However, if the author is able to provide answers to above three questions with evidence (probably in term of systematic research) then the recommendation of restricting water flow on other housing can be fully evaluated.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 436 350
No. of Characters: 2194 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.57 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.032 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.905 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.44 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.435 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.72 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.303 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.131 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 618, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...ampering overall growth of the company. If either of above is true then argument d...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rue then argument does not hold water. Finally even if the author provides evid...
^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
... then argument does not hold water. Finally even if the author provides evidences r...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...commendation can be outright rejected. In conclusion, the argument, as it stand...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, well, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2261.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 436.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18577981651 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56953094068 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99766606039 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465596330275 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 692.1 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.5755423571 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.44 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.44 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.6 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.129065695252 0.218282227539 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0403772115069 0.0743258471296 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0388629582283 0.0701772020484 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0809246920022 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0465630283032 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.