The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager.
"One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately one-third of its original flow. 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, restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further."
The owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building recommends that restricting water flow for the whole building, which includes all twenty floors, will lead to an increase in Sunnyside Corporation’s profit. However, the suggestion is flawed for four reasons, since it ignores certain crucial assumption. Therefore, in order to strengthen the recommendation, these assumptions needs to be proven true.
First and obviosly, the owner omitted the fact that the results of the ‘pilot project’ had not been available by the time the recommendation was made. By quantitatively proving that restricting water flow would lead to a decrease of operating cost, the suggestion could be made stronger.
Secondly, the owner stated that the new shower-heads would restrict the water flow to approximately one-third of the original. Despite what had been mentioned by the owner, it is unclear whether such approximation was made correctly, and by whom it was made. Thus, it would have been better to support this by actually mentioning that the company who designed and manufactured the showerheads clearly states that the showerhead can lower water flow.
Third, it is undetermined that the new showeheads would actually be sustainable in the longterm. For example, although the showerhead may decrease the water flow, but if it needs to be change more regularly than the old showerhead, then additional cost of maintenance would be needed. Thus, this could negatively affect what was hoped.
Fourth, the it is stated that the showeheads can limit the water flow. However, it is unclear whether limiting the water flow may decrease the water consumption. For example, if the rate of water consumption is increased in the following year, then limiting the water flow would do no difference.
Hence, providing how decreasing water flow would lead to a decrease in water usage will make the suggestion stronger
In conclusion, to at least strengthen the suggestion, the four gaps mentioned above needs to be addressed.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-19 | abjodas | 63 | view |
| 2022-09-05 | anujmore | 68 | view |
| 2022-06-01 | Ak_vido | 69 | view |
| 2021-09-07 | samuelgreprep | 60 | view |
| 2021-08-06 | saanri54321 | 58 | view |
- The powerful are more respected not when they exercise their power but when they refrain from exercising it Write an essay in which you develop and support a position on the statement above In writing your essay you should consider both when the statement 66
- The following appeared in an e mail sent by the marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville Over the past ten years there has been a 20 percent decline in the size of the average audience at Classical Shakespeare Theatre productio 16
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager One month ago all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately one third 60
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of WWAC radio station To reverse a decline in listener numbers our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock music format The decline has occurred despite population growth in o 60
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 318 350
No. of Characters: 1640 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.223 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.157 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.896 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 106 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.875 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.772 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.365 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.644 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 9, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...ively affect what was hoped. Fourth, the it is stated that the showeheads can limit...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thus, at least, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 55.5748502994 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1709.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 318.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37421383648 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01850266396 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 204.123752495 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.51572327044 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 504.9 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.4749002531 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.933333333 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 5.70786347227 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222011174685 0.218282227539 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0758511590821 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0762314913444 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0972998837964 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0605281237696 0.0628817314937 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.