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 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 author of the argument purportedly highlights that restrict the use of water flow through showerheads in Sunnyside complex will provide an opportunity for the corporation to accumulate a hoard of money and benefit from this limitation. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which more well-established evidence should be given.
First, the author contends that one month ago the corporation limits the water flow for first three buildings to one-third of what it used to be. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since there is not a sufficient evidence to support if residents will be satisfied in future. One point that should be considered is that these method has been done during last month and maybe not too many people lived there in that time. In fact, the author does not provide any information about population living there and there is the possibility that the company confronts with some complaint in future. Furthermore, what if people decide not to pay for water usage in the response of water flow restriction?
The author also points out that the company will be able to gain a substantial amount of money since they have not to pay each month. Although it might seem tenable at face it has some defects due to the paucity of evidence that would consolidate the premise the otherwise. One of the main, if not the only, problem with the premise is that the author just mentions the limitation of water in showerheads. Indeed, there is the possibility that people use water from different sources like washing the dishes, car and other unnecessary consumptions. The limitation of water flow through showerheads may not work properly and maybe brings the protest of residents in those buildings.
Finally, as set forth by the author just a few people complain about the restriction of water flow. Nevertheless, the rationale behind this premise could be challenged owing to an unsettled evidence to support if vast majorities of residents are living in those three buildings. One point that should not go unnoticed is that the author does not show the exact number of the population the complex and we are not sure what percent of the population are living in those three buildings. What if the number of complains rise up after limitation of water flow for rest of the buildings? What if individuals decide to use more water after restriction?
Having scrutinized all the premises, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there is some evidence, having been ignored by the author while the presence of which could add to the logic of each premise.
| 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 |
- It is the responsibility of the government to support artists. Explain to what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? 62
- In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 66
- Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than 83
- Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry In order to stop the erosion we should charge people for using the beaches Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term i 59
- tpo 42 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 281, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
... support if residents will be satisfied in future. One point that should be considered is...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 336, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this method' or 'these methods'?
Suggestion: this method; these methods
...point that should be considered is that these method has been done during last month and may...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 596, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...e company confronts with some complaint in future. Furthermore, what if people decide not...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 211, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...could add to the logic of each premise.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, third, well, while, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2203.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 446.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93946188341 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5955099915 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72443668479 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457399103139 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 690.3 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.1239892211 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.947368421 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4736842105 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15789473684 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.176787197414 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0565790603734 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0597050251626 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0972683503061 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0456064429531 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.