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 argues that changing showerheads to reduce water flow throughout all buildings in Sunnyside Towers complex will make more profits citing the example of first showerhead-modified three buildings. This assertions seems plausible as the author shows apparently compelling examples and logic to persuade readers for extending the implementation. However, this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, not thus, to lead the manager to introducing this new policy to all of the buildings in Sunnyside Towers complex.
First, there is a question about the fact that the readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are really going to be different. This presumption is seemingly palpable since restriction of maximum water flow are likely to limit the entire water usage in those buildings. However, people may use water during more longer time than before because of the lower water pressure. There are many examples what are needed to use water in household such as taking shower, dish-washing, and laundry. In those cases, the total water usage may not be likely to be decreased because those are clearly necessary to maintain basic life. To sum up, the author should provide more evidence about the prediction of declination in water usage to strengthen his/her argument.
Second, one may cast doubt on the quantities and contents of ‘a few complaints’ the author said. Using only a quantifier ‘a few’ cannot clearly give an exact circumstances about the complaints. A few complaints may be trivial and minuscule, however, the exact ratio of unsatisfied residents to all people living in the complex may be more beneficial to make the author’s assertion convincing. Furthermore, nevertheless the extant people who made complaints are actually in very low percentage, they may be in a severe prolem due to extremely lower water pressure. In this case, even they are a minority in the entire residents of the complex, they may move to another apartments or houses whether the problems are not solved. If then, the potential loss may be possible to damage profits of the complex. That’s why the author should offer the specific data about the complaints to expand the new showerheads in the entire buildings in Sunnyside complex.
Finally, the author did not provide any concrete information about all twelve buildings. Since the remained nine buildings might be in a different circumstance with three buildings already changed to new showerheads, this matter may cause a significant damage to the assertion what the author made. For instance, some of the buildings may be relatively in highlands than others. In this case, the high altitude of those buildings may suffer its residents to lacking of water pressure because generally the water is in underground. If then, for solving this issue, those buildings may need another facilities such as water tanks in rooftops of each of the buildings, which require more costs to be constructed. In summary, modifying the showerheads in all of the buildings may need more costs than the case of first three of them.
In conclusion, the author’s claim that modifying showerheads will surge the profits of the complex cannot be fully agreed with. The limitation of water usage may be directly linked with lower costs for using water. However, the argument is likely to be weakened if the author do not provide more information related to actual readings of water usage, presented complaints, and the environment of the entire buildings in the complex.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | Caveira merona | 69 | view |
| 2019-04-29 | zetton | 55 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 570 350
No. of Characters: 2883 1500
No. of Different Words: 251 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.886 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.058 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.762 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 210 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 156 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 85 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.4 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.92 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.34 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 208, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: These
...st showerhead-modified three buildings. This assertions seems plausible as the autho...
^^^^
Line 1, column 224, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'seem'.
Suggestion: seem
...dified three buildings. This assertions seems plausible as the author shows apparentl...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 478, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...nager to introducing this new policy to all of the buildings in Sunnyside Towers complex. ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 322, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'longer' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: longer
...s. However, people may use water during more longer time than before because of the lower w...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 180, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'circumstance'?
Suggestion: circumstance
... few' cannot clearly give an exact circumstances about the complaints. A few complaints ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 241, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'significant damage'.
Suggestion: significant damage
... new showerheads, this matter may cause a significant damage to the assertion what the author made. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 315, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ion what the author made. For instance, some of the buildings may be relatively in highland...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 753, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...n summary, modifying the showerheads in all of the buildings may need more costs than the ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, apparently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, really, second, so, then, thus, for instance, in conclusion, in summary, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 86.0 55.5748502994 155% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3001.0 2260.96107784 133% => OK
No of words: 569.0 441.139720559 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27416520211 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88402711743 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9169457797 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.451669595782 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 936.9 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6720346184 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.04 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.76 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.96 5.70786347227 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211148485716 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0703207266902 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0741075820567 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141400897605 0.128457276422 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0738394112221 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 98.500998004 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.