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."
The following argument concludes that "modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits further." While this may be true, but in order to evaluate effectively, we need more evidence. This essay tries to mention some of the evidence and explains how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Firstly, the author states that "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." and since the adjustment no problems have been reported.” and assumes that this modifying in all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will have no problems. The water pressure in first three building was high before adjustment, so after adjustment, it did not make problem for residents, but it is possible that water pressure in rest of building was low, so with adjustment residence will have not water. If we had evidence that water pressure is same in all building, then, it would strengthen the argument.
Secondly, the given argument claims that "the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation" but there is no evidence that the change redound to saving. It is possible that the residence finds a way to take a shower with unrestricted water flow (that waste a lot of water). For example, because of low water pressure, the residence modify showerhead to unrestricted water flows. The argument would have been strengthening if had evidence about the rate of saving after modifying restriction in water flow.
Finally, the author assumes that residents are satisfied and there is no problem with the shower because no problems with showers have been reported. It is possible that the residence had problem with the shower but they did not report. For example, researchers proved that just one percent of unsatisfied customer complain. If we had evidence that all residents are satisfied, it would strengthen the argument.
In summary, we need a lot of evidence to complete understanding of strength and weakness of the argument. Evidence, such as sameness of water pressure in all building, increasing rate of saving after modifying restriction in water flow and satisfaction of all residents about showerhead, all are needed to assess the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 308, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...e evidence. This essay tries to mention some of the evidence and explains how the evidence ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 603, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'watered'.
Suggestion: watered
...with adjustment residence will have not water. If we had evidence that water pressure...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 473, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'evidenced'.
Suggestion: evidenced
...nt would have been strengthening if had evidence about the rate of saving after modifyin...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 328, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... all are needed to assess the argument.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, while, for example, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2028.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 382.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30890052356 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96906650965 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.434554973822 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 626.4 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 80.2645625416 57.8364921388 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.2 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4666666667 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53333333333 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.290696978272 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0961409331756 0.0743258471296 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117103495429 0.0701772020484 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174951149579 0.128457276422 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10756485346 0.0628817314937 171% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => 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.