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 manager of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex received a letter from the facility owner that happens to inform about the recent restriction of the maximum water flow to one-third of the actual flow, in the first three buildings. The change is driven by ambitions of saving money and earning more profits by reducing water expense. However, the observations do not line up to support the predictions and I wish to discuss the flaws.
First of all, the owner admits to not have any data signifying the water usage before and after the change. This casts serious doubts over the effectiveness of the change because the alterations are solely driven by the expectation of noticeably reduced water usage. If the residents are going to keep their taps open for a longer time, then no water is going to be saved by restricting the maximum water flow. The reduced water flow can never be directly proportional to the residents’ water requirement or consumption. The restriction can definitely save water when residents negligently keep taps or showers open without any reason, but since no data is available to back such a possibility, the step’s predicted positive impact lays open for criticism, without any solid foundation.
The owner also mentions that few complaints have been received but again, no quantification has been done. We do not know how occupied the first three buildings of the apartment complex are. If the buildings have only 10 apartments occupied, then even 10 complaints are going to look “few” to someone who owns a complex of twelve buildings. When it comes to identifying number of complaints, it is essential to come up with a figure, ideally in percentage, instead of a vague expression as done here by the owner, unfortunately.
Next, we have no idea about the nature of the complaints. Some complaints may be casual, while some serious. Maybe a resident has lodged multiple complaints and that would qualify that particular complaint to be a very serious one and on the list that must be addressed as soon as possible. Moreover, the change is only a month old, which suggests that some residents might still be taking the change as a temporary inconvenience, which they expect to subside soon. Such a scenario is bound to result in only “few” complaints, however, in such a situation, the owner and the manager are only waiting for a sudden outrage in the near future.
Lastly, the owner happens to stumble upon a premature conclusion that the planned change can be implemented to all twelve buildings of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex. The change happens to be supported by very frail observations and data and almost no analysis. Scheduling a similar change at a bigger level only shows haste and desperation, instead of composure and responsibility, which are regarded as necessary values in the service industry. This conclusion also questions the decision of making change to only the first three buildings initially. If the changes were supposed to be ramped up without much studies, then why was it not made initially to all the buildings? This leaves the taken action with no real purpose and does not support the final conclusion either at all.
As can be seen upon deeper analysis that the given argument hardly holds any water and it barely promises the expected returns. A second consideration of the action can be possible only after submission of appropriately studied data in the future.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 575 350
No. of Characters: 2807 1500
No. of Different Words: 273 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.897 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.882 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.733 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.134 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.278 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.522 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...icism, without any solid foundation. The owner also mentions that few complaints...
^^^
Line 9, column 615, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...s were supposed to be ramped up without much studies, then why was it not made initi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, look, may, moreover, second, so, still, then, third, while, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2894.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 575.0 441.139720559 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03304347826 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89685180668 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84222762019 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 286.0 204.123752495 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497391304348 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 912.6 705.55239521 129% => 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: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.005474216 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.76 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.44 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.244247091471 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0661254075259 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103545458997 0.0701772020484 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128835605703 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.107353059106 0.0628817314937 171% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 98.500998004 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.