Author of this proposal to restrict showerheads's maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be offers an interesting argument but to move forward it will require more thoughts and information. While the assumptions stated are logical and probable, careful scrutiny of the arguments reveals that they provide little justification to author's conclusion.
Building upon implication that restricted maximum flow in showerheads will result in significant water saving for a company, author offer to modify water flow in all showerheads at Sunnyside Tower complex. However, this is merely an assumption without solid ground. Author fails to provide any arguments that such action will save a lot of money for a company. Even without actual reading of water, it is quite possible that overall water consumption stated aproximately the same. Residents besides showering are using water for cooking, cleaning and other needs and management cannot influence on that. Besides, reduced water flow in showerhead does not automatically mean that residents are using less water while showering, they just may stay longer under the shower, as the can not leave with soapy hair and body.
Additionatly, author states that amount of complains about low water pressure is low without providing any actual data about number of unhappy residents. Also, besides those who decided to make a complaint there can be a lot of residents, who decided not to take any action. It doesn't mean that the are happy or indifferent to water pressure changes, they just stay unsatisfied with company's service and they can eventually move-out from their appartments due to unwanted changes.
Finally, author assumes, that water restrictions will increase profit, which is not necesseraly so. As stated above, water consumption is unlikely to decrease, so apartment complex will not save a lot money. Additionaly, there can be a lot of unhappy resident moving out from the complex and preventing others to join the Sunnyside Tower, which will lead to profit loss.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuative as it stands. The author of the recomendation believes that restricted water flow in showerheads will reduce company's expenses and increase profit, but these assumptions are unwarranted. Moreover, the writer's proposal may hurt company's revenue even more.
- 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 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. 70
- The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company."Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One 54
- Altruism in meerkat and humans 3
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sur 79
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 278, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... who decided not to take any action. It doesnt mean that the are happy or indifferent ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 295, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...to take any action. It doesnt mean that the are happy or indifferent to water pressure ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 247, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...umptions are unwarranted. Moreover, the writers proposal may hurt companys revenue even...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, however, if, may, moreover, so, third, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1971.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 366.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38524590164 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84512304367 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554644808743 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 624.6 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
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: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.8388457313 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.941176471 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5294117647 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.17647058824 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
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: 0.196968270383 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0619159373916 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0882617364369 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106010179871 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.066175492379 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => 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: 13.98 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.32208582834 114% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.