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 Tower apartment complex wants to gain profit by limiting supply of water. One month ago, the shower heads in first three buildings modified to decrease the water flow up to one-third of what it used to be. He assumes that due to modifying shower heads there will considering saving for Sunnyside corporation. He also looking for dramatically increase in profit with use of modifying shower heads to restrict water flow in all twelve buildings. A careful analysis of the given evidence reveals loopholes that weaken the argument to a great extent.
A major loophole the owner expects dramatically profit without getting result of present experiment. The shower heads in first three buildings are modified as experiment but the before and after reading of supply of water do not receive yet. They had decreases water flow up to one-third to previous pressure which does not means people will use less water. The managers have not any evidence about how much water used so they cannot estimate profit gained by three experimental buildings. In this realistic condition the owner expected that the profit will definite if modification done in all twelve buildings. Therefore, owner should predict realistic goals and for realistic goals the evidences must.
Another obvious flaw in the given argument is they did not get any complaint regarding showers, but they have complaints of low water pressure. There is a plausibility that the people are unable to identify about showers work and they considered that showers are new so the problem is outside. One more possibility the complaints of low water pressure comes from other buildings rather than first three. In the argument the author did not mention about address of complaints. The managers should analyses the complaints whether these complaints are related to their plan of low water pressure supply or its general due to maintenance was not proper. It should be noted that without evidences we cannot predict profit definitely.
Additionally, the water is basic need of human life. So, people will affect due to low water pressure and get irritated because of wasting their time. In rush hours of morning when everyone is busy for get ready to go out that time the low water pressure can hurdle for residents. The Sunnyside Towers apartment complex is looking for profit from low water supply may convert to loss if residents get puzzled in daily life. Profit from modified shower heads may not be a large amount but if the residents leave the building the owner will have to pay double. So, the owner should go through the whole plan before assuming definite profit.
Conclusively, the given argument fails to convince the reader that restricting the flow of water will indeed result in less water usage thereby saving the amount of money that is paid by the corporation for the usage of water. The argument could have been substantiated by evidence that proved that the water usage has actually reduced after imposing the restriction on water flow.
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: 25 15
No. of Words: 503 350
No. of Characters: 2494 1500
No. of Different Words: 227 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.736 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.958 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.507 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.12 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.507 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.496 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 291, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'consider'
Suggestion: consider
...ue to modifying shower heads there will considering saving for Sunnyside corporation. He al...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 325, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'mean'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: mean
...ird to previous pressure which does not means people will use less water. The manager...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, if, look, may, regarding, so, therefore, third, to a great extent
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2542.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 503.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05367793241 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55700785133 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463220675944 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 801.0 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.5569177517 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.68 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.12 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.72 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.235267585025 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0711718663267 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0734979687458 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142994965387 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0734713287663 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.8 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.