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 owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment's suggestion to restrict water flow of all of its apartments to increase profits seems axiomatic at a glace. However, there are some questions the author needs to answer in order to evaluate the validity of the argument.
First enquiry the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment needs to answer is to show the evidence that restriction applied to the first three buildings resulted in considerable savings. Even the author states that the bill is not yet available, meaning that the author's claim is not based on a solid evidence. Also, even if it turns out that the apartment complex has saved a lot of money, the author still needs to give concrete evidence to answer if that savings is a long-lasting result.
Second, the author of the letter needs to provide answers of characteristics and conditions of residents in the first three buildings. The owner asserts that the new restriction is successful since there was only a few complaints and no problems with showers. Nevertheless, the owner failed to rule out all the possible variables; it could have been vacation season where many people vacated their homes, or it could be that not many people are currently residing in those three buildings, which inevitably leads to a small number of responses. The author needs to show the percentage of the complaints and conditions of the season and residents in order to effectively bolster the claim.
Third, even though the restriction policy turned out to be successful in the first three buildings, the owner still needs give an answer on which the same results would be drawn out in all other buildings. The author falsely equates the conditions of the first three buildings and all other buildings without giving any evidence. It is entirely possible that residents in other buildings are more fickle and sensitive regarding their shower environments, thus leading to increased amount of complaints.
Lastly, the owner is required to provide a response regarding the cost and benefits of the restriction policy. Here, the author supposes that reducing money on water usage will engender dramatic increase of profits. The owner's claim is based on an assumption that water usage bill is a large portion of costs; nonetheless, the owner fails to consider other factors that could have even larger portions in the entire expenditure. Perhaps, installation of the new shower fee could be extremely costly that the savings seems rather negligible. Additionally, residents might leave due to poor shower conditions, and the apartment complex could become less attractive to potential customers as well, which would rather result in decrease in profits. Also, the author has to put into consideration about advertisement, marketing, and administration fees in which the markets could be unstable, thus advancing the cost.
All in all, the owner's contention is unsound; the author should answer all the aforementioned queries in order to strengthen the claim.
| 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 |
- A recent study reported that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets. Specifically, dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. In light of these findings, Sherwood Hospital should form a partnersh 81
- No field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside that field. 69
- Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. 74
- Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people. 81
- An ancient, traditional remedy for insomnia—the scent of lavender flowers—has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where the 78
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- better to say: maybe the duration for people who use the shower is longer. and resulting no water saved.
argument 2 -- not OK. maybe nobody going out. anyway there are ' a few complaints'. here the argument is: 'One month ago,', maybe after more months, more complaints will come up.
argument 3 -- OK
argument 4 -- OK
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 486 350
No. of Characters: 2469 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.695 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.08 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.748 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.579 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.735 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.355 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.592 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: DT_JJ_NO_NOUN[1]
Message: Probably a noun is missing in this part of the sentence.
... to increase profits seems axiomatic at a glace. However, there are some questions the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 517, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...ee buildings, which inevitably leads to a small number of responses. The author needs to show the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'owners'' or 'owner's'?
Suggestion: owners'; owner's
...advancing the cost. All in all, the owners contention is unsound; the author shoul...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, nonetheless, regarding, second, so, still, then, third, thus, well, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2532.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 486.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20987654321 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83454268879 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462962962963 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 768.6 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.3675662394 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.263157895 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5789473684 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.36842105263 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206465362564 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0688348669925 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0840598779268 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12463470259 0.128457276422 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0603612326867 0.0628817314937 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.