The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager."One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately one-thir

Essay topics:

The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager.

"One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately one-third of its original flow. 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, restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

It seems to be logical, at first glance, to agree with the idea that modifying showerheads in all of the apartments leads to raising the company profits. However, the argument relies on a couple of less credible evidence or even doubtful assumptions to consolidate its stance. In what follows, I will elaborate on them in detail.

The 1st problem with the argument is that it could not provide enough information about the actual reading of water usage before and after water restriction. Perhaps, because of water low pressure, the use of water will be increased. That is, when people who are living inside the apartment notice that their showerheads has not enough pressure, they want to take a repeated shower during the days to clean themselves effectively. Hence, the usage of water has been increasing. Also, without having additional information about people water usage it is difficult to claim that the corporation will be able to save more money by water restriction in showerheads. To explain more, people may use more water in another part of the subjects such as clothes washing, dishes washing, or even washing their cars.

Even assuming that the argument provides enough information about people water usage before and after shower modifications, other puzzles require to be answered. The argument leaves other unanswered questions about the number of people have been bothered by the shower adjustment. It may be true that the number of people who are annoyed by the shower water restriction is infinitesimal, this does not mean that other people who live in the apartment are a pleasure with this idea. To clarify this point, the argument averts that water restriction could be pragmatic to all of the floor in the apartments, yet it only provides compliant from first five-floor apartments. If the number of the floor which assigned to use water restriction increase, the number of compliant will raise as well.

Citing the modification on showerheads to restrict water usage, the author averts that this idea results in huge profits for the corporation. Although by water restriction the corporation could save its water cost every month, this profitability could not remain for a long time. Maybe the building people want to buy a water pump to amplify their water pressure for a top floor, so the power usage among these people have been increased. Consequently, the corporation will have to pay more power cost every month.

To fully evaluate the argument had better provide additional enough information about its stance. The first pieces of information we need to know is the water usage among people before and after water limitation idea. To better assessment, we also require to know more about complaint peoples who live on another floor of the apartment. Finally, it is greatly recommended to notice another unpredictable aspect of water confinement.

In summary, because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that showerheads water modifying leads to bring more profits for the corporation.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 95, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... the idea that modifying showerheads in all of the apartments leads to raising the company...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 570, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...water restriction could be pragmatic to all of the floor in the apartments, yet it only pr...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 256, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'knowing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: knowing
.... To better assessment, we also require to know more about complaint peoples who live o...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, so, well, in summary, such as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 78.0 55.5748502994 140% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2578.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16633266533 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7973999507 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448897795591 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 818.1 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.7852639409 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.086956522 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6956521739 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.91304347826 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.156323362939 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0523004086475 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0376598269075 0.0701772020484 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0900271119467 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0229452147226 0.0628817314937 36% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.

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: 23 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2517 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.044 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.691 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.696 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.428 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5