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 onethird 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 todecide 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 author predicts that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will help them dramatically gain more profits. The prediction is mainly based on that 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 and no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment other than a few complaints about low water pressure. However, some questions should be addressed before the author proves the validity of this prediction.
The author mentions that 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 one month ago and infers that the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation since the company must pay for water each month. Nevertheless, some questions should be addressed before the author validates this argument. In all likelihood, people may use the water for a longer time on account of the lower water pressure, which means that the water used might be even more than before. So the company has to pay more for the water used every month. What’s more, it is possible that the usage of water before the adjustment may be less than one-third of the maximum, so it is unnecessary to modify the showerheads. Hence, without actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment being offered, the argument cannot hold water.
The author also mentions that no problems with showers have been reported after the adjustment except for a few complaints about the low water pressure and deduces that this adjustment has no impacts on the residents living in the buildings. Apparently, behind the inference lies the assumption that all people who have problems with the showers after the adjustment will report their complaints to the company, which is tenuous under certain scenarios. It is entirely possible that they just did not complain to the company, but they might move to other areas, which is more severe than the complaints. Besides, it is also probable that the potential residents may not choose to live here after hearing about the low water pressure. Therefore, it is hasty to assume that the change of the showerheads has no effects on the residents. Addressing the aforementioned questions might more defensibly reinforce the argument.
On the basis that the usage of water has really diminished and the change of the showerheads has no impacts on the residents in the first three buildings, the author cannot justifiably conclude that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will help them dramatically gain more profits. Without addressing the following questions, the credibility of the conclusion cannot be proved. Will the residents throughout all twelve buildings have no complaints about the change of the water flow? Not exactly. It is highly possible that the residents in the rest nine buildings are more fastidious than the ones living in the first three buildings. So they are more likely to be unsatisfied with the smaller water flow. Besides, the profits is swayed by the cost and revenue, which means that the spending of changing the showerheads, such as the payment for the workers and the cost of the tools used when modifying the showerheads, should be taken into consideration. Hence, the profits may not be considerable as expected. Under these scenarios, the conclusion is unconvincing.
To sum up, although the conclusion may be comprehensible in some aspects, some questions should be addressed before the author substantiates the argument. Had the author delivered more answers to the questions, the conclusion and the whole argument might be more defensible.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 633 350
No. of Characters: 3220 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.016 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.087 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.706 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 229 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 174 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 134 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 98 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.346 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.013 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.731 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.487 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, besides, but, first, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, really, so, therefore, third, as to, except for, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 55.5748502994 148% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3300.0 2260.96107784 146% => OK
No of words: 633.0 441.139720559 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21327014218 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01592376844 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80755456409 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.361769352291 0.468620217663 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 999.0 705.55239521 142% => 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
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 88.8827846564 57.8364921388 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.0 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.32 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.258360121705 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0753630781921 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116093909921 0.0701772020484 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170181476883 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.137259326471 0.0628817314937 218% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.