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 owner of the Sunnyside Tower complex assumes that with showerheads adjustment to reduce the water pressure to one-third of what it used to be, all twelve buildings will use less water. Based on the author, corporate will save more money because they should pay less for water. The author mentions because only few complaints have been reported from first three building, so all other none building will be fine with the showerheads’ adjustment too. The owner of the building complex needs evidences to prove his/her argument.
First of all, the author mentions that only few complaints about low water pressure have been reported from three building since last month. But the author does not mention the total number of residents and total number of complaints from those three buildings. Also, complains are just for last month. The owner of the complex might get more complaints in the future form those same three building because some residents might think that the change is temporary.
Moreover, the author promises high profits for the corporation, but he/she does not provide enough evidences. The owner does not know the exact usage of water before and after showerheads changes. The author just accepts that people are going to use less water with the new showerhead changes. Probably, residents are going to spend more time to use water because the pressure is lower than before. Thus, the corporate will not save money because more water will be used and they should pay for it.
In addition, the author concludes that same number of residents for other nine building are going to complain like those three buildings. We do not know if people living in other nine building are going to have same or different reactions to water flow adjustment like residents in first three buildings. Residents in other nine building might be more busy employees with less extra time to spend under shower. So as a result, number of complaints might be more than number of complaints in the first three buildings.
Lastly but not least, the range age of population of each building has not been indicated. It can affect the numbers of complaints. For example, it might be more elderly and retirement residents in the first three building. So, they might have more time to spend under shower and do not complain about it. But the range age for other nine building can be different. For example, they might be more parents’ population which is going to bring more complaints about the water pressure change. Because parents are already so busy with their works and kids. Thus, they might get more frustrated to spend more time under shower.
The owner of these buildings should answer different questions to make sure that reducing water pressure by adjusting showerheads will save money for managers. They need to consider age group and total number of populations of each building. Also, they should know the water usage number before and after showerheads changes. Even with all of these proves, we still do not know if the people of other none buildings are going to have a same reaction to changes. Thus, the author’s conclusion is not valuable.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 532 350
No. of Characters: 2561 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.803 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.814 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.303 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.733 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.429 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.633 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.511 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 625, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...trated to spend more time under shower. The owner of these buildings should answ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, lastly, moreover, so, still, third, thus, for example, in addition, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2642.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 530.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98490566038 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79809637944 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41313304796 2.78398813304 87% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.364150943396 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 791.1 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.9486841883 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.0666666667 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6666666667 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.83333333333 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185060525007 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0542947868123 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060286815103 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115329370764 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0746337415889 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.8 8.32208582834 82% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => 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.