Dear Owner,
Your idea of replacing the showerheads may have the potential to save money and even increase profits; however, many questions must be explored before we can reasonably argue that changing the showerheads in the remaining nine buildings will result in increased profits for the company. We must conduct research, strengthen the claim, and provide verifiable evidence that supports the claim for a more cogent argument.
The first step toward establishing a more persuasive claim is to gather more verifiable evidence and rely on fewer assumptions. We must ascertain the city’s water usage records for the last year before the showerheads were changed as a baseline for comparison to the water records for a year after the showerheads have been changed. Without these records for comparison, we can only speculate as to whether changing the showerheads alone will result in increased profits. Cogent reasoning relies on an ideal subset to produce statistically significant results.
To find an ideal subset, we must determine what a representative sample for the twelve buildings would be so that our conclusions will be based on sound reasoning. A representative sample must be based on a total population for all twelve buildings in the complex. We must ask questions such as are all of the buildings at maximum occupation or are some of the buildings unoccupied at various times throughout the year? What are the ages and backgrounds of the residents? How many showers on average does each resident take normally? Once we know the total number of consistently occupied buildings and residents per building as well as the usage patterns, then we can determine how many of the twelve buildings would need to have reduced consumption showerheads, making certain that the usage of water is relatively similar in each building, to gather reliable statistics for water usage with and without reduced flow showerheads.
Moreover, we need to conduct surveys of residents who are using the reduced flow showerheads to gather more information to support our claims. How many residents are happy with the new showerheads? Are they using less water, attempting to conserve more, or are they taking longer showers to compensate for the reduced flow of water? Each resident of our subset must take the survey for our sample to be statistically significant and persuasive.
Once we have the results of the surveys and comparison of water records, we can formulate a reasonable claim of the feasibility of changing the showerheads in all twelve buildings to increase profits. We may claim that changing the showerheads in all twelve buildings may result in less water usage, which would save or company funds that are normally spent on water usage. Then we must produce our verifiable evidence as support of the claim, concluding with evidence of increased savings from our ideal subset, and provide a proposed budget that will include cost of showerhead replacement and repairs, for a clearer sense of the overall profits for the year.
With a reasonable claim, verifiable evidence, and a positive yield of funds from our sudy, we may persuade the corporation that changing to reduced flow, energy efficient showerheads will increase company profits.
The owner’s idea of replacing the showerheads may potentially save money and even increase profits; however, currently, the claim is based on little more than speculation without evidence. Conducting research and verifying evidence before establishing a claim results in a more cogent argument. Therefore, the owner should conduct research, strengthen the claim, and provide verifiable evidence that supports the claim that using reduced flow showerheads will increase company profits.
First, establish a more persuasive claim by suggesting a hypothesis, gathering more verifiable evidence, and relying on fewer assumptions. Ascertain the city’s water usage records for the previous year, using regular flow showerheads, as a baseline for comparison to the water records of the year after, using reduced-flow fixtures. Without these records for comparison, only speculation based on a lack of evidence is possible, which is not persuasive or reasonable. Cogent reasoning relies on empirical data.
Next, cogent reasoning depends on an ideal subset to produce statistically significant results. Therefore, determine a representative sample for the twelve buildings so that the conclusions will be based on sound reasoning. A representative sample is based on a total population for all twelve buildings in the complex, not just three buildings. Ask questions such as are all of the buildings at maximum occupation or are some of the buildings unoccupied at various times throughout the year? Survey the ages and backgrounds of the residents. Gather facts such as how many showers on average each resident takes. Once the total number of consistently occupied buildings and residents per building as well as the usage patterns are gathered, determine how many showers of the twelve buildings would need to have reduced consumption showerheads to complete the study. The usage of water must be relatively similar in each building, to gather reliable statistics for water usage with and without reduced flow showerheads.
Moreover, conduct surveys of residents who are using the reduced flow showerheads to gather more information to support the claim. How many residents are happy with the new showerheads? Are they using less water, attempting to conserve more, or are they taking longer showers to compensate for the reduced flow of water? Each resident of the subset must take the survey for the sample to be statistically significant and persuasive.
With the results of the surveys and comparison of water records, formulate a reasonable claim of the feasibility of changing the showerheads in all twelve buildings to increase profits.
Finally, a responsible study produces verifiable evidence in support of the claim, concluding with evidence of increased savings from our ideal subset. In addition, a reasonable argument suggests a proposed budget that includes cost of showerhead replacement and repairs, predicting a clearer sense of the overall profits or losses for the year.
A reasonable claim, verifiable evidence, and evidence of a positive yield of funds from the study may persuade the corporation that changing to reduced flow, energy-efficient showerheads will increase company profits. More importantly, using less water will combat climate change, which is more important than company profits. Persuading both residents and the company of the importance of water conservation is necessary for the success of the new program.
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and supporti 50
- In any situation progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In devel 50
- Some people believe that our ever increasing use of technology significantly reduces our opportunities for human interaction Other people believe that technology provides us with new and better ways to communicate and connect with one another Write a resp 54
- The vice president of human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company s president A recent national survey found that the majority of workers with access to the Internet at work had used company computers for person 66
- Competition for high grades seriously limits the quality of learning at all levels of education Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In deve 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 524 350
No. of Characters: 2858 1500
No. of Different Words: 227 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.784 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.454 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.969 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 223 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 193 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 138 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 96 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.96 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.79 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.44 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.505 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 393, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
...s for comparison, we can only speculate as to whether changing the showerheads alone will res...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 300, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...plex. We must ask questions such as are all of the buildings at maximum occupation or are ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 350, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... buildings at maximum occupation or are some of the buildings unoccupied at various times t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, well, as to, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.9520958084 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2738.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 524.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22519083969 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7844588288 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88168697234 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.421755725191 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 856.8 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 85.415147954 57.8364921388 148% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.9 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.85 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 6.88822355289 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.110443633465 0.218282227539 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0406245460952 0.0743258471296 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0325656004926 0.0701772020484 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0639794527932 0.128457276422 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0206312002491 0.0628817314937 33% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => 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.