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 author predicts that restricting the water flow throughout the buildings in Sunnyside Towers complex will have a significant impact on increased profits. Although the author’s prediction has some merit, three questions must be asked in order to determine the validity of the argument. If the questions answered weakens the argument, then the author’s prediction would be unsubstantiated and deeply flawed.
Firstly, how can the author assure that without the actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustments would imply savings in profit? The actual readings of water usage before and after adjustments can determine whether people living in the buildings have used more or less water. If readings show that people used less water after adjustments have been made, then the author’s conclusion would be supported. However, if the readings after the adjustment show that there was no difference in the use of water, then it would invalidate the author’s prediction. Unless the author can provide substantial evidence whether water usage decreased, then the prediction is faulty.
Secondly, if no reports on shower problems have been made after the adjustments, then are they valid indications that there are no shower problems? Because the adjustments have only been made in three buildings, it could be that few or no people live in those buildings. Therefore, no reports have been made because there aren’t enough reports to be made. Therefore, the author must indicate whether the three buildings have a small or large population in order to determine water usage. If there is a smaller population of people living in the buildings, then of course the complex would save more money and have fewer reports. However, if there were more people living in the building, and no complaints have been made, then it would make a whole difference to the argument. If the author mentions a small number of people living in the building, then the prediction would prove unlikely to be true.
Lastly, how can the restriction of waterflow in three buildings determine savings for the restriction of waterflow in the rest of the twelve buildings? As mentioned in the last paragraph, there could be a possibility that fewer people live in the three buildings compared to the rest of the buildings. If more people live in the other twelve buildings, then there would be a difference in how much money is saved. Additionally, restricting the water flow does not determine whether people will use more or less water. People may shower more than once a day. Therefore, they are capable of using more water. Furthermore, the author must consider population size and shower usage in order to validate the prediction. If not, the argument fails.
In conclusion, the author must consider the answers to the question in order to validate the prediction. If the author does not provide relevant evidence, then the entire argument falls apart.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 25 15
No. of Words: 480 350
No. of Characters: 2403 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.681 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.006 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.614 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 168 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.762 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.84 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.354 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.493 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.156 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...reased, then the prediction is faulty. Secondly, if no reports on shower proble...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 805, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...to the argument. If the author mentions a small number of people living in the building, then the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ction would prove unlikely to be true. Lastly, how can the restriction of water...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ediction. If not, the argument fails. In conclusion, the author must consider ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, in conclusion, of course, more or less
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2479.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 479.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17536534447 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74594799405 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.369519832985 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 765.9 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 14.0 2.70958083832 517% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.2196308896 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.16 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.16 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0979605546073 0.218282227539 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0360797207861 0.0743258471296 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0551617951153 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0658368165792 0.128457276422 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.043548841405 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.