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.
In the letter from the owner of the Sunnyside towers apartment building to its manager, it is stated that the restricted water flow in all the floors of the apartment will increase overall profit stating the reasons that there were few complains from the tenants and no problems have been reported to them. Well, on the surface the argument presented by the owner seems plausible but three questions must be answered to fully evaluate the recommendation.
Firstly, is there any saving of water at all? As the owner has stated that actual reading are not yet available, the actual saving could not be determnined. It may be the case that, the tenants have bypassing the regulated shower heads and had been using the water as before. In addition, it may be possible that, people have using wasting water on other taps other than showerhead. So, if any of the above cases is true then the argument presented by the owner on the letter is significantly weakened.
Secondly, how serious were the complains from the tenants? The owner has mentioned about the few complains regarding the issue, but have not mentioned about the seriousness of the complains. It is plausible that, the complains regarding the low water pressure was serious, as the result of the restricted the pipe containing the water may have leaked or brust open. In addition, it is possible that it has been impossible to shower from the showerhead beacause of the restricted water flow in the showerhead. Therefore, if any of the above cases hold water then the argument presented by the owner in the original letter is seriously hampered.
Thirdly, even if we assume that the complains were not serious and there is no considerable problem right now, will it be the same case for if all 20 floors's showerhead are restricted? It is well within the possibility that the problem of low water pressure will increase. Moreover, it is also be possible that due to restricted on high number of showerhead, the pipe may explode due to high pressure. So, if above cases are have merit then the argument of the original letter is considerably hindered.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands is considerably flawed because of its reliance n several unwarrented assumptions. If the author of the letter is able to provide more evidences and answer the above three questions in systematic mannner then it will be possible to properly evaluate recommendation made by the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment regarding the restriction water flow in showerhead.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 425 350
No. of Characters: 2052 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.54 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.828 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.691 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.611 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.894 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.889 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.549 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.086 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 384, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[4]
Message: “So , 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.
...er on other taps other than showerhead. So, if any of the above cases is true then the...
^^^^^^
Line 15, column 295, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...ure will increase. Moreover, it is also be possible that due to restricted on high...
^^
Line 15, column 403, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[4]
Message: “So , 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.
... pipe may explode due to high pressure. So, if above cases are have merit then the arg...
^^^^^^
Line 15, column 426, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...o high pressure. So, if above cases are have merit then the argument of the original...
^^^^
Line 19, column 410, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e restriction water flow in showerhead.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, well, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2116.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97882352941 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78269889654 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.414117647059 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 666.0 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.7293510619 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.555555556 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6111111111 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.70786347227 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.258532705332 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0814826079456 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0888423382595 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167892457105 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0884877052265 0.0628817314937 141% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.