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 owners of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex have proposed to make further restrictions on water use in all its buildings, since this action has been effective in the first three buildings. To convince the manager, they mentioned that restricting water flow should help reducing total consumption, and only a few complaints have been received about the matter. However, several questions regarding the details of the policy should be answered, before the argument seems plausible.
To start with, the owners hastily predicts that a decrease in water consumption is to be anticipated, before the actual readings are available. This deduction, however, is based on the underlying assumption that all other factors remain unchanged after the limitation in water flow. It is conceivable that residents tend to extend their shower duration, with the water flow being limited. In addition, the water used for laundry is constant every time. In this case, we can not expect a significant change in water usage. The owners of the Sunnyside Towers should wait until the actual readings are available to carry out further actions.
The owners also mentioned that only a few complaints have been received since the showerheads are modified. However, they have committed the false dilemma that those who didn’t complain do not care about the modification. It is likely that some residents did not complain, because their neighbors did, so they don’t have to make repetitive complaints. There are also possibilities that some residents regard the issue as a temporary malfunction, if the modification has not been publicly announced, in which case numerous complains are likely to flow in after they realized that it’s done on purpose. To solidify their proposal, the owners should answer whether most residents are not exasperated by the modification, otherwise the action might cause serious consequences.
Finally, the author made a false analogy that methods effective for the first three buildings will work well on all other buildings. However, we may ask whether these buildings are similar enough in every aspect to be indeed comparable. For example, if the other buildings have different kinds of showerheads that are expensive to modify, carrying the modification may actually bring about more financial burden to the company. Furthermore, it is likely that the dwellers in other buildings are more affluent, and pay more attention to their home amenities, in which case the action is likely to trigger numerous complaints from the residents.
In conclusion, the owners of the Sunnyside Towers fail to answer several critical questions regarding the proposal. To make the argument more plausible, they should answer whether the modification is indeed effective. Additionally, more solid evidences about the opinions of the dwellers should be provided.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-15 | christine_cui | 89 | view |
| 2019-07-12 | sanketdhande | 33 | view |
| 2019-05-16 | FallonM | 89 | view |
| 2019-04-10 | kishankkmr | 51 | view |
| 2019-01-25 | evanlu | 52 | view |
- 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 66
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals."In a controlled laboratory study of liquid hand soaps, a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bact 66
- 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 66
- 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 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 279, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to reduce' or 'reduce'.
Suggestion: to reduce; reduce
...that restricting water flow should help reducing total consumption, and only a few compl...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 429, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t more financial burden to the company. Furthermore, it is likely that the dwell...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, well, for example, in addition, in conclusion, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2437.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 447.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.451901566 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85621267469 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496644295302 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 765.0 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 4.22255489022 308% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.1820904567 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.047619048 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2857142857 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.57142857143 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210551674436 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.059038846519 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0686209162467 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117466899117 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0660867584021 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.