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 a letter to the manager of Sunnyside Towers apartment, the owner writes that modifying showerheads to all twelve buildings will reduce costs and increase profits. It's based on the assumption that water consumption has reduced irrespective of the readings, all the twelve buildings have similar water requirements and shower availability being considered as important point of evaluation. However, the above recommendation can be deemed valid by answering the below three questions.
Firstly, what is the guarantee that the water consumption has reduced? It is assumed that there will be considerable reduction but the readings weren't considered. Even though the water flow has reduced, people may still end up using similar quantity of water. What if more guests have arrived at the apartment leading to increased water consumption? One cannot base there findings without considering factors such as the number of people present before showerheads were attached and after, etc. If any of the above scenarios comes true, then the water bill may still end up at the same level.
Secondly, the owner assumed that all twelve buildings have similar water requirements but how can anyone conclude that the rest of the apartments are similar? There may be more bachelors in the initial tested apartments whereas the rest of them are having joint families. The number of people would be directly proportional to water consumption and would lead to lot of inconvenience to such families. One should carefully administer the requirements per building and then conclude on the showerheads instead of considering all the buildings as a single bunch.
Thirdly, the owner assumed that just because there were no complaints on showers, the restriction in water flow is plausible. What if it was rainy season and the tanks were always full leading to no complaints from the tenants? What if during summer, the naturally low water level, along with restricted flow would be detrimental to the water outlet? One should carefully evaluate the above scenarios before reaching conclusion. If any of the above scenarios is true, then the residents are in for a nightmare during summer time.
In conclusion, the owner's claim is majorly flawed as observed by the above mentioned unwarranted assumptions.
If the owner provides relevant evidence which answer above questions, then the argument can be further evaluated. Until then, the claim shall remain flawed.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 388 350
No. of Characters: 2015 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.438 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.193 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.76 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.69 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.311 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.541 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.074 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 145, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...considerable reduction but the readings werent considered. Even though the water flow ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 516, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'scenarios'' or 'scenario's'?
Suggestion: scenarios'; scenario's
...hed and after, etc. If any of the above scenarios comes true, then the water bill may sti...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 518, Rule ID: SUMMER_TIME[2]
Message: Use simply 'summer'.
Suggestion: summer
...residents are in for a nightmare during summer time. In conclusion, the owners claim is ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, whereas, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2067.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34108527132 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83955932666 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521963824289 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 640.8 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.3927076409 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.4285714286 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4285714286 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.7619047619 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.126110607827 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0390997668229 0.0743258471296 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0329977355424 0.0701772020484 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0561280270438 0.128457276422 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487325774851 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => 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: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => 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: 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.