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 author of the letter avers that the restriction to the water usage in the apartment complex named the Sunnyside Towers can result in economic benefits for the complex. The owner who wrote this text presents several supporting points for his argument. While these statements seem to be plausible at the first glance, they are based on logical fallacies or unwarranted assumptions. Therefore, it is hard to conclude that lowered water usage would be profitable for the complex by referring to such weak evidence.
To begin with, it should be noted that even the writer himself admits that the actual results of water usage before and after the new policy have not been reported. In this situation, it is not reasonable for the owner to believe that the new measure would be conducive to saving money. The complex's economic condition is related to a myriad of factors. Whereas the monthly expenditure for water can be one of these factors, it is difficult to say that water usage has a decisive influence on the general financial condition of the complex. There seem to be other important factors, such as the expenses for management, renovation, and maintenance. Other fees for electricity and gas should be concerned as a part of such costs too. In this circumstance, it can be said that the savings resulting from the limited water usage may not have a significant effect on the complex's finance unless the writer shows accurate data to support his idea.
Besides, even though the owner says that there have been a few complaints only, it is not possible to say that the actual reactions of the residents have precisely been reported. As the author does not reveal his source of information, it can be assumed that he just heard the voice of a few people through limited methods. Meanwhile, there may be a lot more dissatisfied inhabitants who just do not have a proper way of communication or keep silent while being disappointed. Therefore, the owner has to mention the ways he has used to research the opinions of the residents.
Furthermore, while the letter mentions that the restriction should be applied to all twelve constructions, this argument is just a result of the hasty and imprudent generalization. Apart from the aforementioned problems, such generalization also has serious logical fallacies. First of all, even if we suppose that the limited water usage in the three buildings is helpful for the economic condition of the complex, this outcome cannot always be true for the other nine buildings. Those buildings may have different conditions in their shapes and geographical locations, and therefore the saving effects may vary a lot.
In conclusion, the main idea of the author is not reliable unless he adds more concrete data to buttress his points. It should be also noted that if the modification was really implemented in all parts of the three buildings. If there were omissions, it is not even possible to say that the supposed savings from the three buildings are complete.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 505 350
No. of Characters: 2454 1500
No. of Different Words: 237 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.74 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.859 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.719 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.955 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.17 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ex by referring to such weak evidence. To begin with, it should be noted that e...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ws accurate data to support his idea. Besides, even though the owner says that...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...esearch the opinions of the residents. Furthermore, while the letter mentions t...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re the saving effects may vary a lot. In conclusion, the main idea of the auth...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, furthermore, if, may, really, so, therefore, whereas, while, apart from, as to, in conclusion, such as, first of all, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2512.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 505.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97425742574 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83029391941 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473267326733 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 791.1 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.6537962082 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.181818182 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9545454545 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.18181818182 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.181347216464 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0556598135367 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0676138445914 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108042496724 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0593650366334 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.