The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager.
"One month ago, 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. I predict that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits even more dramatically."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
The owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex predicts that restricting water use in all its 12 buildings will have positive effects on their profits. To solidify their opinion, the owners indicated that limiting maximum water flow should result in less water consumption. In addition, few complaints have been reported about the adjustment in the 3 building that already implemented the restriction. However, more questions have to be answered before the manager can be convinced about the idea. the argument seems plausible.
To start with, although actual readings after the restriction are yet to be available, the author hastily predicts a fall in water usage. Although less water will be used per unit of time, the restriction is not likely to reduce total water consumption. Actually, the amount of water used by washing machines or dish washers is similar each time. If maximum water flow is restricted, these machines just waits longer till a similar amount of water are collected. Besides, people would probably take a longer shower under a smaller flow of water. To convince us that the total water used are to decrease, the author should provide evidence that these factors does not vary significantly when water use is restricted.
Besides, the author suggested that few complaints about the restrict water use has been reported. It is conceivable, however, that many other residents who are also discontent with the restriction did not bother to make the complaint: They don’t have to complain about the same issue as their neighbors did. Besides, if the restriction has not been publicly announced, some residents may regard it as a temporary malfunction, which might be dealt with in a few days. Once they realized that reduced water flow is done on purpose by the managers, it is possible that numerous complaints flow in. Before carrying out such a restriction on water use, the author should consider these possibilities, and answer what the true opinions of the residents are.
In addition, the author points out that if the restriction on the first three buildings have been working well, similar actions will also be effective on other buildings. However, we may ask whether the two buildings are comparable in every aspect to be indeed comparable. For example, if the first three buildings are economical apartments for young graduates, whereas the other buildings are more luxurious apartments aim at the affluent, who pay much attention to details, it’s likely that more complaints will be reported. Besides, if many apartments on other buildings are rented by the residents, it’s more likely for them to simply move away. The managers should consider the possibilities of his/her actions.
In conclusion, there are many questions remaining to be solved, before the manager can be convinced that restricting water use is indeed helpful. More details about the residents’ opinions should be collected, and more information about the differences between the buildings should be provided.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 504, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...anager can be convinced about the idea. the argument seems plausible. To start w...
^^^
Line 5, column 57, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...hor suggested that few complaints about the restrict water use has been reported. It is conc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, first, however, if, may, so, well, whereas, for example, in addition, in conclusion, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2565.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 484.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29958677686 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82426680626 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.487603305785 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 793.8 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.2001329658 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.52173913 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0434782609 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.34782608696 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => 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: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195576071045 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.060375299067 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0676927287306 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114531157564 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0607267809457 0.0628817314937 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.