In a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex, it is stated that profit can increase dramatically if they modify the showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings of the complex. The owner has come to this conclusion based on the evidence that restricting water flow to one-third will result in reasonable savings since they pay for water each month and no problems with shower have been reported since the adjustment(except few low water pressure complaints). However, before this prediction can be properly evaluated, three questions must be answered.
First of all, are showerheads the only source to consume water? It is possible that there is more than one water consumption source in the building for example, in the kitchen or in gardens where water consumption is much greater. Further, there is a possibility that the monthly water bill is not charged for showerheads only. If the above holds true, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, what if modified showerheads do not restrict water as they are supposed to? In other words, since the readings of water usage before and after the modification of showerheads is not available, how has it been made sure that water usage has lessened over the month? Maybe the modified shower heads do not really work and water flow from showerheads is still maximum. If either of the above scenarios has any merit, the prediction made by the owner of the build does not hold water.
At last, is water pressure across the other nine buildings comparable to the three buildings in which showerheads are modified? Put differently, what if the water pressure in other buildings is very low already and the box is filled with low water pressure complaints? The owner prematurely assumes that water flow also needs to be restricted in other nine buildings, whereas, it is possible that other buildings water flow needs to be improved in order to resolve the already frustrated resident's complaints. If the above statement is near true, then it may cause residents or customers to move from the complex, which might account for a huge loss instead of an increase in profits.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the owner is able to propose an answer to three questions stated above and offers more evidence(perhaps in the form of a systametic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability about the prediction that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow can become the cause of a huge rise in profits.
Essay evaluation report
better to say: maybe it takes longer time for people to use the water
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 441 350
No. of Characters: 2177 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.583 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.937 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.765 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.941 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.182 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.824 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.581 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.069 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, whereas, for example, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2232.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 441.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0612244898 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83278861866 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478458049887 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 695.7 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.9161853567 57.8364921388 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.294117647 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9411764706 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.58823529412 5.70786347227 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.329347322494 0.218282227539 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111199670171 0.0743258471296 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109193161241 0.0701772020484 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178613833712 0.128457276422 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0727691702039 0.0628817314937 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.