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 proposes modifying all showerheads in twelve buildings to restrict maximum water flow because it will economically benefit the tower complex. He or she offers an interesting argument, but it suffers from some logical flaws and gaps in evidence. While connections suggested are reasonable, there are many other possible scenarios that should discourage the tower complex from constraining the maximum water flow.
To begin with, the author assumes that restricting maximum water flow to one-third of previous does not cause big inconvenience to dwellers in the building because there were few complains. Yet we cannot be sure that the entailing inconvenience is negligible. People usually do not always complain whenever they feel not comfortable. They may not want to spare time complaining the problems or they may bear the inconvenience just because they do not want to argue with someone. If dwellers in the building actually feel uncomfortable and hesitating to complain, the author's assumption weaken. What is more, because the modification was occurred only one month ago, it is too short period to conclude that people are indifferent to restriction and few complains will be accused later. People may accuse a lot of complains later when they need high water pressure like hot and dry summer.
Let us assume, though, that dwellers in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were actually indifferent to lower maximum water pressure. Then we are prompted to ask whether the people in other nine buildings will be indifferent too. The author unfairly assumes that other building's resident will show same response to those in first three building. But we cannot rule out the possibility that people in other nine buildings require higher water pressure comparing to people in first three buildings. Their work place might be drier and take showers more usually. Without more reasons to justify equaling the people in first three buildings and those in others, we cannot take it for granted.
Thirdly, the author predicts economical benefit because water usage will be reduced corresponding to lower maximum water pressure. It is illogical to believe, however, that decrease in water usage will be entailed just by confining maximum water pressure. People in buildings may use water longer than before because water pressure is low. They may take shower longer than usual. Before we conclude that less water will be used after the modification, we need to access the actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment.
Finally, the author does not provide any information about the cost of modifying showerheads. To evaluate whether the adjustment is economical or not, we have to compare the cost and the savings. The savings of modifying all the showerheads in the building might be overwhelmed by costs of repairing them. Before the author provides the actual cost and savings, it is hasty to claim that modification is cost-effective.
To sum, the author's proposal that modifying all the showerheads is logically flawed based on the above mentioned reasons. To strengthen his or her claim, the author should closely examine all the conditions and possible factors. In conclusion the author's argument reflects unsupported claims without clear reasons or evidence.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 527 350
No. of Characters: 2739 1500
No. of Different Words: 245 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.791 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.197 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.714 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 206 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 162 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.821 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.77 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.289 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.534 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.157 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 568, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ortable and hesitating to complain, the authors assumption weaken. What is more, becaus...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ation is cost-effective. To sum, the authors proposal that modifying all the showerh...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 248, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...and possible factors. In conclusion the authors argument reflects unsupported claims wi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, third, thirdly, well, while, in conclusion, to begin with, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2803.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 527.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31878557875 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77681926012 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485768500949 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 872.1 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.0145945473 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.107142857 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8214285714 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.64285714286 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => 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: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.251705414386 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.067696129955 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0853474957158 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127890638169 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0877232436814 0.0628817314937 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 98.500998004 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.