The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its
manager.
"Last week, all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were
modified to restrict maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be. 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, modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve
buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits further."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure
to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the
argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted
The memo put emphasizes on the benefits of supplanting the new water system which can extenuate the amount of water consumption to its lowest points in compared with the conventional method. To endorse this hypothesis, three postulations have been proposed: 1) this can save approximately one-third of water which the residents take up, 2) there exist just minor malcontent about using this approach and the last but not the least the utilization of this can engender a myriad of profit for the company. After weighing each of the repercussions, it is conspicuous that none of them seem logical.
A threshold problem with the argument involves no precise records of how amount of water can be retained after the time that this new method had been implemented. Based on just some experiments without any verified results, rarely can it be anticipated that this way of water system in apartments can leave a plethora of positive consequents. Thus, to make a more coherent conclusion, the subsistence of exact records and documents of both before and after inserting this water system is necessary.
Nor does the mere fact that since this new approach can be pragmatically for three buildings, it can be also helpful for all twelve constructions. In fact, the more the wide range of cases is regarded in one experiment, the more reliable and accurate results can be obtained. Hence, according to this tenet, it is better to further expand the number of constructions under the same conditions to reach more logical consequences about the degree of usefulness of this water system.
Even assuming that owing to the minority of a number of dissatisfaction about this new water system, exploiting for all other buildings can demonstrate the similar results cannot be tenable. Since, firstly the population of denizens living in these buildings is ambiguous, secondly, the elevation of the apartment does not specified as one of determining factors in damping the pressure, as a result, this theory about how this new water system can amplify the emolument of the corporations cannot be defensible totally. To elucidate on, determination the population and height of the buildings should be calculated to vindicate the usefulness of this novel strategy.
Admittedly, the author provides not evidence to substantiate that how persons in that building have tendency to purchase this water system if their desires are not met. For instance, the pressure reduction is one of adverse issues alleviating the penchant of applicants to implement this method in their homes. Or the amount of revenue that the corporations can receive should be scrutinized for longer periods of time and then compared it with the traditional method, then make a vigorous ramifications.
In sum, the argument encompasses some blemishes and therefore implausible as it stands. To bolster the thesis, the manager of as a designer for this project should speculate the degree of malcontents of inhabitants as the population grows, as well as, recognizing and demystifying the exact differences between the previous and current changes in conserving water. Ultimately, the pressure loss as the height of building augments can be another predominant factors in averring the accuracy and privileges of this new method.
(526 words)
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 45, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[5]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun dissatisfaction seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much dissatisfaction', 'a good deal of dissatisfaction'.
Suggestion: much dissatisfaction; a good deal of dissatisfaction
... assuming that owing to the minority of a number of dissatisfaction about this new water system, exploiting...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 210, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ts cannot be tenable. Since, firstly the population of denizens living in these b...
^^
Line 4, column 325, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'specify'
Suggestion: specify
...the elevation of the apartment does not specified as one of determining factors in dampin...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 490, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'ramification'?
Suggestion: ramification
...raditional method, then make a vigorous ramifications. In sum, the argument encompasses some...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thus, well, for instance, in fact, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2768.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 528.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24242424242 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79356345386 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01868749187 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 204.123752495 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511363636364 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 875.7 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 73.3280867761 57.8364921388 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.777777778 119.503703932 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.3333333333 23.324526521 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.88888888889 5.70786347227 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.0768234370843 0.218282227539 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0272214191548 0.0743258471296 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0213327369049 0.0701772020484 30% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0472510034763 0.128457276422 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0196079643428 0.0628817314937 31% => 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: 17.9 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.92 8.32208582834 119% => OK
difficult_words: 162.0 98.500998004 164% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.