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."
Author concluded that by restricting water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex would increase profits. To justify the conclusion, author provided the case when such restrictions were implemented in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers and stated that except few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported and money would be less charged for each month as water flow is restricted. Such evidence notifies that by restricting the water in all twelve buildings would result in more profits. I found author’s argument unconvincing and lends little credence in support of conclusion.
Firstly, Author stated that first three building of Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow. Here author have implemented such restriction on only three building and on the basis of result obtained from such experiment, author assumed that same thing will also hold for other buildings in Sunnyside Towers complex. It might happen that those three buildings are the buildings who doesn’t waste water or have less water usage and thus restricting such water limits would not affect them. As author have also not provided that water usage before and after the adjustment, author cannot assume that the change would be profitable.
Secondly, Author stated that only few complaints were registered related to water and no complaints with showers have been recorded. It might happen that those three buildings residents are not one who register complaints about unavailability or their daily practices doesn’t involve much water. Is such is case, author assumption that other residents will not complain and in turn low water flow would result in profit is dubious. Author should provide statistical data about the residents will react to such adjustment. It might happen that author due to large number of complaints from residents have to undone the adjustments. If such would be case than it will incur great loss to author.
Thirdly, Author further stated that such change would led to profit but such statement would become wrong if the charge for water each month increases. And author also have presumptuously assumed that by adjusting water flow in showerheads to one-third of what it used to be will reduce water usage. It might happen that water usage in shower is low compared to other activities like gardening, washbasin, cooking, etc. Thus, author assumption that by reducing showerhead waterflow would reduce the water usage is unwarranted.
In conclusion, I found author’s argument unpersuasive. In order to strengthen the argument, author should ensure that first three building residents are the ones who complains about their suffering and their daily practices incur high water usage. Author should also provide statistical data about the responses of other residents towards such adjustment and also should also ensure that in long future the rate of water per month would not increase. To better evaluate the argument author should ensure that residents of Sunnyside Towers complex use more water in showering than doing other activities.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 498 350
No. of Characters: 2613 1500
No. of Different Words: 203 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.724 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.247 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.517 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.837 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.395 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.138 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 637, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...sidents have to undone the adjustments. If such would be case than it will incur g...
^^
Line 7, column 55, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'lead'
Suggestion: lead
...r further stated that such change would led to profit but such statement would beco...
^^^
Line 9, column 610, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... showering than doing other activities.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.9520958084 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2688.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 496.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41935483871 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66670697539 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.413306451613 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 807.3 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.76447105788 0% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.2442209 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.181818182 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5454545455 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.27272727273 5.70786347227 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236664877525 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0970554898875 0.0743258471296 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120896337023 0.0701772020484 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167030634145 0.128457276422 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102311453892 0.0628817314937 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
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: 14.45 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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
---------------------
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.