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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The argument stated above is faulty for numerous reasons. Essentially, the author rests the argument on foundationless assumptions including a month is a sufficient amount of time to show specific findings residents are willing to voice their opinions. Concluding Sunnside Towers complex will increase in profits because of modifying showerheads to restrict water flow based on the prior stated assumptions, is unreasonable.
Firstly, the author fails to provide evidence to support the assumed results in the letter. The author states the actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not available yet and it is still suggested that water usage will not change. It could be possible because of the restriction of water flow in the showerheads, the residents of Sunnyside Towers are spending more time in the shower compared to before this change. This would not show considerable savings for the cooperation because instead of spending 10 minutes in the shower, the residents may spend 20 dues to the low water pressure. The lack of data presented by the owner renders the assumed results as unreliable because there is no guarantee or hard evidence to argue that water usage will stay static. On the other hand, if the author waited to receive the readings of water usage before and after the adjustment of showerheads, the argument would deem to be more plausible because realistic data would be provided. In either case, there is no way to be sure that the residents will not change the time they spend in the shower.
Additionally, the argument neglects to address other issues presented. Imagine the water usage and time spent in the shower in the 3 buildings of Sunnyside stays constant, it is still baseless to conclude residents have no problem with this change. Though only a few complaints have been reported to the corporation, the author continues to speculate all other residents of the 3 complex buildings have positive thoughts on the adjustment. Some people are more candid than others and are able to voice their complaints to management, it is also possible that a majority of the residents living in the complexes are unwilling to share their feelings about the new change to the employees. It could also be that a majority of residents in Sunnyside are not willing to complain to the staff but are willing to complain to other citizens of the area. This may cause others thinking about moving into the apartment complex to rethink their decision and the company could actually lose revenue because less people are interested in living at Sunnyside. Because the author fails to consider other aspects that could alter the results seen, the argument is weakened. However, if the company sent out a mandatory survey for all residents to fill out stating their thoughts of the change and included the results in the argument, then it would hold more validity. But even so, it can’t be said that a great number of residents would favor this change.
Lastly, the arguer implies the outcome seen in the 3 buildings will be an accurate representation of the whole complex. For example, if there are on 100 people living in those 3 buildings combined but there are 10,000 people residing in the whole complex then the results seen in the 3 building would not be sufficient to conclude the same outcomes will also be seen in the other buildings. The comparison made by the author would be illogical, which would further undermine the argument.
As a result of the various unwarranted presumptions made by the argument, the author is unsuccessful in compiling a compelling case to prove the restriction of water flow in the showerheads in the apartment complex will indeed benefit the company’s profits.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-27 | thevamsi5932 | 58 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | sairaghu96 | 58 | view |
| 2023-07-26 | diya | 60 | view |
| 2023-07-13 | shubham1102 | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | Jonginn | 65 | view |
- The following appeared in a recommendation from the President of the Amburg Chamber of Commerce Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district and vandalism there declined almost immediately The city 73
- The following appeared on the Website Science News Today In a recent survey of more than 5 000 adolescents the teens who reported eating the most meals with their families were the least likely to use illegal drugs tobacco or alcohol Family meals were als 58
- Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little 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 83
- Claim Imagination is a more valuable asset than experience Reason People who lack experience are free to imagine what is possible without the constraints of established habits and attitudes Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agr 50
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state even if these areas could be developed for economic gain Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 623 350
No. of Characters: 3067 1500
No. of Different Words: 255 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.996 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.923 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.642 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 230 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 175 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 125 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.087 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.095 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.508 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 997, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...any could actually lose revenue because less people are interested in living at Sunn...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, so, still, then, even so, for example, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 90.0 55.5748502994 162% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3129.0 2260.96107784 138% => OK
No of words: 623.0 441.139720559 141% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02247191011 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.99599519102 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73142158069 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.418940609952 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 978.3 705.55239521 139% => 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: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9241078346 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.043478261 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0869565217 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73913043478 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147844916629 0.218282227539 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0479726569876 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0547753350464 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101327846702 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0302853795267 0.0628817314937 48% => 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: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.