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.
The owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building in the letter to his manager, states that the restriction of the water flow by the modification of showerheads on the first five floors in their towers will significantly increase their profit. While it is tempting to believe that the conclusion drawn in the argument is plausible, it would be fallacious to do so. The author has made a few assumptions that left holes in the reasoning of the argument.
Firstly, the author of this argument states that all the showerheads were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately one-third of its original flow and that, even if the actual readings of water usage are not still available, he assures that the monthly water expenses will be considerably diminished. It can be easily seen that the author does not have any proof for his statement, which makes this statement an unwarranted assumption. The owner cannot conclude anything before he has available actual reading of water usage. Therefore, already from the beginning of these changes, it might be that the modification was more expensive than the actual water bills. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water. In addition, he does not show any reason why they have modified the showerheads. Maybe the residents of the towers did not ask for any water restriction and money saving. He has not led any survey among the residents. By its name, it is tempting to believe that Sunnyside Towers apartment is a luxury building. If this is true, then the renting prices are very high. Thus, if the residents of the towers can afford the prices of rent, it is hard to believe that they cannot afford to pay for the basic expenses such as the water usage.
Secondly, the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building informs his manager that there are no problems with showers reported, except the low water pressure. This leaves considerable holes in the reasoning of his statement. Low water pressure is always irritating and realistically, a big problem. Thus, it might be that the majority of the residents will complain about it which could result in great problems for the owner of the towers. It is possible also, in the case if the current problem with the water flow cannot be resolved, that the residents cancel their renting contracts with the Sunnyside Towers. If any of these scenarios have merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument cannot be considerate plausible.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on a few unwarranted assumptions. If the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building in his letter to its manager is able to provide more evidence such as the survey led among all the residents of the towers, expenses of the modification made and the bills received after this modification was made, then it will be possible to fully evaluate this argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 495 350
No. of Characters: 2379 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.717 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.806 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.641 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.482 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.46 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thus, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 28.8173652695 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2437.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 495.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92323232323 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71684168287 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73079906704 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.420202020202 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 773.1 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.1577954365 57.8364921388 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.772727273 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299945536247 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0795742899452 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105915657317 0.0701772020484 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196648696019 0.128457276422 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0655794189308 0.0628817314937 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.