"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."
The argument here concludes that restricting the water flow by modifying the shower head would increase the profit of Sunnyside Towers complex. The author here has assumed that the modification of shower head in the first three building would obviously resultt in savings of the complex. Reading it first time the argument looks compelling but giving it a second look undercover many gaps and loopholes. The argument seems to have fragmentative evidence and ambiguous or no information about water usage prior or after the modification. Neither are the premises compelling nor the conclusion seems compelling. The argument is very evidently the result of hasty generalization.
Firstly, the author here has mentioned that the modification took place on first three building and based on that modification will take throughout twelve buildings. But the author here has not presented the details the buidings. It can be the case that first three buildings had 1BHK houses and comparatively less number of people per house due to which the usage of water can is less. This can't be the case with all buildings. And another point that the usage of water is not available. It can be the case that no effect of the modification would have occurred instead because of decreasing the water flow people would have started to spend more time bathing. And the author also has not considered the usage of water from other sources. Like the usage of water in kitchen, for house hold work, gardening, washing cloth. People would instead use water tap for all this uses.
Secondly, the author here has discussed about the profit. Author has said that decrease in use of water would, in turn, lead to increase the savings on water consumption bill. But the author here has not given the detail about the tariff plans of water usage. For example, a tariff plan like consumption of 500K-1000K liters would cost some dollars. And previously if the usage of water was 950K and after modification, the usage has decreased to 560K, still the corporation needs to same amount of bill. The author here needs to give the accurate information regarding billing system.
The argument is the result of huge speculation in which the author has assumed that there would be a decrease in the usage of water in first three building after modification and also the usage data is not available. Had the author taken into consideration the above discussed factors into view the, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. But whatever is presented fails to provide a holistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 379, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'be'
Suggestion: be
...use due to which the usage of water can is less. This cant be the case with all bu...
^^
Line 3, column 393, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ch the usage of water can is less. This cant be the case with all buildings. And ano...
^^^^
Line 3, column 398, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'is'.
Suggestion: is
...e usage of water can is less. This cant be the case with all buildings. And anothe...
^^
Line 7, column 296, Rule ID: THE_PUNCT[1]
Message: Did you forget something after 'the'?
...n the above discussed factors into view the, it would have rendered the argument irr...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 33.0505617978 48% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2169.0 2235.4752809 97% => OK
No of words: 432.0 442.535393258 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02083333333 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55901411391 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66709161834 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.451388888889 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 675.0 704.065955056 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.8017043017 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.375 118.986275619 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.66666666667 5.21951772744 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253918728949 0.243740707755 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0760850312967 0.0831039109588 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0642314891259 0.0758088955206 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16003627097 0.150359130593 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0417170969842 0.0667264976115 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.1392134831 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.54 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.38706741573 91% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 100.480337079 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.