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. 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 discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
At first glimpse, the argument seems to be plausible. However a closer scrutiny of the evidences reveals that, a lot of significant queries yet to be responded to consider the argument valid and irrefutable. In the assertion the author concludes that, modifying shower heads to restrict water flow in all the buildings of Sunnyside towers complex will increase their profit. To substantiate the conclusion, the author cites several evidences which seems flawed and unreasonable. Hence the conclusion can be considered as untenable, due to lack of persuasive evidences and unstated assumptions.
Firstly, the author asserts that, all the shower head in the first three buildings were modified to restrict the maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be. But the author hasn’t given any data regarding the actual water usage before and after the adjustment were made. It can be possible that, since the water flow has been restricted, so people are using water for long duration. And thus it seems implausible to believe that, the actual water usage has been reduced. Since, the water flow has been reduced, but people are using more water for long times to fulfill their usage. So considering this issue, the author’s assertion is simply untenable.
Secondly, the author mentioned that, very few complaints have been reported to them due to the low pressure of water. But no problem with showers have been reported. But the author haven’t given the exact number of the complaints. It can be possible that, the exact number of the complaints is a large number, which he has mentioned as few. Because numbers vary from one to one’s perspective. Moreover, it can be possible that, people are very much angry in the inside but unwilling to report complain about this. Because there exist many people who avoid unnecessary complaints and contention. Again it also can be possible that, they are getting ready to change their residence due to this issue but haven’t reported any complaints to the apartment manager. So considering these assumptions, the authors view is simply untenable.
Last but not least, the author asserted that, since their policy have been succeeded in the three apartments, so it will be profitable if they also implement this policy in the all twelve apartments. But I strongly disagree with this assertion. Because, we cannot rely on the three apartment and apply the same thing to the others apartment. Since, every apartments are different from each other and every people in the apartment are also different from each other. So collecting data from the three department and giving conclusion about the twelve apartment is simply untenable. Moreover, the author haven’t provide any significant data about their profit. It can be possible that, the policy will be profitable for short run, but in the long run it will not be profitable. So without investigating all these factors, the argument is simply untenable.
Therefore, the argument should not be considered as valid and reliable until the relevant issues are evaluated. To further fortifying this argument, the author is suggested to provide the evidences as follows: the author should provide the data of the actual readings of the water usage before and after the adjustment. The author also inspect properly, whether the residents were truly satisfied with the water flow, or they were simply unwilling to complain. Also the author should calculate about their profit properly. By stating these evidences, the argument can be considered as tenable and irrefutable.
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: 33 15
No. of Words: 582 350
No. of Characters: 2902 1500
No. of Different Words: 231 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.912 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.986 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.575 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 204 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 118 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 81 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.636 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.385 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.758 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.279 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.452 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 55, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...se, the argument seems to be plausible. However a closer scrutiny of the evidences reve...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 480, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...es which seems flawed and unreasonable. Hence the conclusion can be considered as unt...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e evidences and unstated assumptions. Firstly, the author asserts that, all th...
^^^^
Line 13, column 325, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'others'' or 'other's'?
Suggestion: others'; other's
...artment and apply the same thing to the others apartment. Since, every apartments are ...
^^^^^^
Line 17, column 462, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...they were simply unwilling to complain. Also the author should calculate about their...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 11.1786427146 206% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3033.0 2260.96107784 134% => OK
No of words: 578.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24740484429 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90322654589 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75722372314 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432525951557 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 948.6 705.55239521 134% => 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: 18.0 8.76447105788 205% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 19.7664670659 167% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.0580005883 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.9090909091 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5151515152 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.39393939394 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.140328353239 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0377236593035 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0658621514658 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0873194675316 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.049906852979 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 98.500998004 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
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.