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.
The efforts taken by Sunnyside Corporation to reduce water use and effectively impove profits at a glance seem to work, but under the surface this plan has many flaws and assumptions. Some of the being- Firsty, no clear data about water usage is still available, It has been assumed that reducing the flow rate of water through shower heads will reduce the actual water used for an water based activity. Secondly, no clear way of billing has been elaborated. Thirdy it has been assumed that the initial condition can be extrapolated without differences to the rest of the buildings without clear idea of equipments used in the bathrooms. Now to further elaborate these flaws.
Without data about the first one third of the buildings, where the shower heads have been modified it cannot be said that net water usage has actually decreased. The people who showered earlier for five minutes with orignal showerhead now may need three times the time for the same. Keeping the net usage the same, or the low pressure and less flow may not satisfy them and can have an inverse effect leading to further expenditure of water. Without clear data usage recored in the first third of buildings, the idea cannot be extrapolated to give efficient and economical results.
No clear indication about the payement of water has been made by the manager to the residents. It may be that water supply cost is fixed for any amount used as measuring it is not an easy task. Thus, no economic advantage is received even by reducing use, clear understading on the matter is required to take effective steps to curb reduction in cost and usage. If, payement for water bill is based on litres/gallons used then meters should be installed for measuring and the payment should be done on individual basis, which will also make residents more dilligent in usage and the economical aspect for the corporation can be managed simentaneously and efficiently.
It has been assumed that all the residents in the housing complex use shower for bathing activity as little have complant over the low shower pressure, this may not be true. Residents may use tubs, buckets and mugs for this acitivity. The rest of the building where this hasn't been done, in those poeple may not use showers and only use tubs for bathing. In which case changing the shower heads will have little to no effect on the total amount earned by the corporation or the water used by the residents. First a clear idea about what is the cause of more use should be determined and then a suitable solution should be fabricated.
These following points show how the assumptions by manageer and the corporation can be flawed and have no real effect on the situation and have no monetary benefits. First a proper understanding of the usage pattern and equipment of use is required then only effective ways can be deducted for the required purpose.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 14 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 498 350
No. of Characters: 2344 1500
No. of Different Words: 227 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.724 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.707 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.474 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.9 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.653 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.32 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.068 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 185, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...is plan has many flaws and assumptions. Some of the being- Firsty, no clear data about wate...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 380, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...s will reduce the actual water used for an water based activity. Secondly, no clea...
^^
Line 7, column 272, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...ty. The rest of the building where this hasnt been done, in those poeple may not use ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2398.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 496.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83467741935 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57306093201 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459677419355 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 771.3 705.55239521 109% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.8791983641 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.9 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.15 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0896014794509 0.218282227539 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0306710700047 0.0743258471296 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0255895751131 0.0701772020484 36% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0551560217495 0.128457276422 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0207502565642 0.0628817314937 33% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.03 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.