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.”
The statement presents a recommendation from the owner of the Sunnyside towers apartment building to its manager by the aim of reducing costs of water using modified showerheads with restricted water flow. Since the new showerheads control the water flow to one-third of its original, the owner claims that using them will lead to less water consumption and higher profits. Although the recommendation may seem to be practical at the first sight, it is replete with wholes and unexamined assumptions.
The first problem with the recommendation is that the author does not mention the total cost of changing showerheads for the whole twenty floors. The number of showers on each floor and cost of each new showerhead should be clarified. Maybe the expenditure of using new showerheads and their maintenance for the entire tower outfits the annual water bills. If the owner seeks to arrive at a profitable recommendation, sufficient statistics and data should be provided to evaluate the credibility of the recommendation.
Another weak point of the recommendation is about the usefulness of the new water flow. As the author mentions, one month ago they have changed showerheads of the first five floors but they did not test the actual reading of water before and after the modification. How can the owner make sure this is a practical solution without testing the results? It is possible that they receive an unexpected increase in the usage of water since the new water flow is one-third of its original and people need to stay a longer time in the shower to wash themselves with the low pressure of water. Furthermore, the author states that there were already few complaints about the low water pressure, though they have just installed modified the first five floors. There is a high possibility of an increase in the number of complaints in the future if they modify the rest of the floors since water flow is already low at higher altitudes.
Let us assume that new showerheads may reduce the water usage of apartments. How can the owner guarantee that the only source of water consumption is related to taking showers? Maybe people use dishwashers, bathrooms, washing machines and other devices a lot in a way that offset the effect of new showerheads. If the owner wants to pay for a new change, alternative factors that may influence the water consumption of residents should be investigated thoroughly.
To summarize, changing showerheads to new ones with lower rates of water consumption is reasonable if the owner and manager ponder over the assumptions and examine the possibilities and assumptions. Modifying the entire showerheads of a twenty-floor tower without evaluating its efficacy, not only may not bring a profit to the owner but also may incur loss.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly. Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
Clearly, restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further.
----------------
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 459 350
No. of Characters: 2281 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.629 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.969 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.87 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.158 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.597 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, may, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2321.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 459.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05664488017 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9547945845 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470588235294 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 723.6 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.3669519424 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.157894737 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1578947368 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.57894736842 5.70786347227 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.292667146521 0.218282227539 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.091997341437 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0821954449726 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169015617749 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0823899765232 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.