It might seem logical at first glance to agree with the mentioned argument by which modifying showerheads to constrain water flow for all twelve buildings instead of the only first three would be conducive for increasing corporation's profit as sunnyside corporation should pay monthly for the water. The author of the argument relies on what might be less credible or even unproven assumptions to support his/her claim. Before the claim can be properly evaluated, however, some questions must be answered.
Firstly, one problem regarding the argument is that the author indicates that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow leads to decreasing water usage, thereby increasing the corporation's profit far more. A question that comes to mind is how much water is attributed to the shower of owners? As the water usage before and after installing the new showerheads is not available, evaluating the amount of using water is almost impossible. this question deserves consideration before any decision is made regarding any type of change.
Secondly, the argument depends on a weak correlation. The author implies that by installing new showerheads, the water usage would be decreased. a question that arises is whether the piping system is effective and does not have any defect? What if there are leaky faucets? Gallons of water are wasted almost every day. If so, replacing new showerheads is not effective to reduce water usage in the building and the argument would be lack any merit.
Lastly, one more problematic argument is that the author points out that there are a few complaints about water pressure after modifying showerheads. In this scenario, knowing the occupancy rate would help to evaluate the argument appropriately. How many families are living in three buildings? It is worth mentioning that low occupancy in three buildings that experience showerhead replacement leads to a low number of complaints about water pressure and vice versa. In addition to this, low water pressure cause longer taking shower to compensate for the reduction which in turn triggers wasting more water. Apparently, the author is faced with potentially unrepresentative statistical results which are not significant in size. If so, then the argument would amount to especially poor recommendations.
To conclude, despite the argument suffering from several problems and is unconvincing, we can not absolutely rely on or refute it without pursuing further assumptions and reasoning. The author can strengthen his/her assertion by answering the questions above while offering more evidence. Without these changes the argument is implausible and reasoning is faulty.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 417 350
No. of Characters: 2206 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.519 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.29 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.887 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 105 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.421 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.471 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 441, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...nt of using water is almost impossible. this question deserves consideration before ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 146, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: A
...ds, the water usage would be decreased. a question that arises is whether the pip...
^
Line 6, column 711, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: significant
...ative statistical results which are not significant in size. If so, then the argument would amount ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2258.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 415.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44096385542 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95271095091 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522891566265 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 708.3 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 59.0708779352 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.1739130435 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0434782609 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.82608695652 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
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: 0.279970317037 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0746593835682 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0753179682803 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155655378916 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0878823879237 0.0628817314937 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.