The author recommends that for increasing the performance of Sunnyside Towers, they should modify showerheads to restrict flow. To support this recommendation, the writer asserts that this plane causes the water to save considerably. This recommendation might seem logical and specious, at the first glance, but the author of this argument relies on a series of doubtful assumptions to support his claim that I will distinguish them below.
A threshold problem with the argument involves that the writer overlooks the fact that there is no guarantee that using the new model of the shower will reduce the water consumption. In other words, water not only uses in the bath but also uses in many other ways such as washing machine, water heater, home consumption, and so forth. As a result, if true, then the argument's recommendation would be unwarranted.
One more problem with the argument is that there is no any information about the expense of this plane. As a matter of fact, it is possible that equipped the building with new showers is so expensive. Hence, this plane is not practical and may lead the process to fail. As a result, absent any explanation of expense of this plane, I simply cannot accept the author claim.
Even assuming that applying new showers are practical and causing the water consumption to decrease the conclusion that there are limited complaints cannot convince me. As a matter of fact, maybe, many people who live in these buildings are not satisfied, but they don't make complaints about new situations. The number of people in three building is lower than other buildings is another possibilities. In addition, perhaps, the residents in the building makes the one complaints. Furthermore, the writer does not provide information about the ratio of the number of people who make the complaints and the number of residents. In other words, maybe the number of complaints is high relative to the number of residents. Without ruling out this reason, the memo simply cannot justify his proposal.
To put a nutshell, despite the argument suffers from numerous flaws, we cannot completely accept the author claim or refuse it, unless author provides more information about mentioned flaws. without them, the argument is unconvincing and implausible.
Dear, thanks a lot for your
Dear, thanks a lot for your response. Your notes are so useful.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The number of people in three building is lower than other buildings is another possibilities.
Description: A determiner/pronoun, singular is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to another and possibilities
----------------
argument 1 -- not OK. correct arguments: people may shower in a longer time. for example, it may take 10 minutes before, but now it is 20 minutes for a shower.
argument 2 -- OK, but better to argue like: maybe the expense is over the money saved because of the water restriction.
argument 3 -- not exactly, look:
Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment.
//the complains happened only in one month, as time goes by, maybe there are more complaints.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 373 350
No. of Characters: 1857 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.395 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.979 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.732 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 135 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.722 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.592 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Dear thanks a lot for your
Dear thanks a lot for your response. I will improve my writing according to your suggestions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...im that I will distinguish them below. A threshold problem with the argument in...
^^^
Line 3, column 367, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...o forth. As a result, if true, then the arguments recommendation would be unwarranted. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 53, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...blem with the argument is that there is no any information about the expense of th...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...simply cannot accept the author claim. Even assuming that applying new showers ...
^^^
Line 7, column 266, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...e buildings are not satisfied, but they dont make complaints about new situations. T...
^^^^
Line 7, column 466, Rule ID: ONE_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use the numeral 'one' with plural words. Did you mean 'one complaint', 'a complaint', or simply 'complaints'?
Suggestion: one complaint; a complaint; complaints
...the residents in the building makes the one complaints. Furthermore, the writer does not provi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 192, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Without
...more information about mentioned flaws. without them, the argument is unconvincing and ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, if, look, may, so, then, in addition, such as, as a matter of fact, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1917.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 372.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15322580645 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82865577654 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.508064516129 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 581.4 705.55239521 82% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.0339040468 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.894736842 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5789473684 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118091697285 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.037343754651 0.0743258471296 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0414210836635 0.0701772020484 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0616249595938 0.128457276422 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0459686200915 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.