Last week, 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. Clearly, modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits further.
Of course, the saving rather than wasting any is like gaining profit. The modification to the showerheads – to restrict the flow of water- in first three buildings of Sunnyside Towers will result in saving of water, which in turn results significant savings. But the water usage in the Sunnyside Towers might not merely be due to showering purpose; there could be a plenitude of reasons of maximum water usage. Although the given premises are valid, it is needed to conduct further more deliberate survey to come to even more tenable, valid, and reliable conclusions. The argument presented here is rife with full of holes and fallacious assumptions.
The author should have explored other means by which more water could have been utilized. Although water may be saved by restricting water flow of showerheads, it is not necessary that with the same strategy replicating in other 9 buildings of Sunnyside Towers, water can be saved in the same way. For example, there could be myriads of causes of maximum water usage like excessive flushing, leakage from the water pipes.
Although there is no any complaint from the 3 buildings, there could be complaints from other 9 buildings, if water flow is restricted. Firstly, the author needs to survey other buildings in order to find out the reason for maximum water utilization; should it deem necessary to restrict flow at showerheads, the author must consult with the residents first.
The author assumes that the same measure of restricting water flow will result profits through water saving in other building as achieved in first three buildings. Along with this assumption is the presumption that, without clear evidence, restricting water flow will reduce water utilization to one-third. Not only will showers lead to maximum water utilization, but there are also some other specifics that will increase consumption or wastages. So, without considering other factors, the author should not guarantee the outcome.
More specifics need to be studied meticulously to back up the argument. Should the author study it from broad perspective, he will come across more other important avenues that can significantly reduce the consumption of water and ultimately a greater savings. There is no clear evidence in the argument that restricting water flow at the showerheads only in all twelve buildings will increase profits. For this reason, the author needs to conduct a more detailed, valid, and reliable study to come up with well-developed plausible assumptions and conclusion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-28 | sushil koirala | 55 | view |
| 2019-07-28 | Fatema Humayara | 43 | view |
| 2019-06-19 | sermisha | 43 | view |
| 2019-04-07 | wbae0826 | 82 | view |
| 2019-01-10 | jaincharvi | 45 | view |
- Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have filed a formal complaint, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the 50
- Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development. 77
- The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine."In 1975 a wildlife census found that there were seven species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, with abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of am 43
- The following appeared in a health newsletter."A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that 59
- Last week, 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 ye 55
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 405 350
No. of Characters: 2074 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.486 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.121 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.692 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.433 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 19, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...m the water pipes. Although there is no any complaint from the 3 buildings, the...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, so, third, well, for example, of course, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2135.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25862068966 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79516175104 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.465517241379 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 657.0 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0345546343 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.611111111 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5555555556 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11111111111 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.310834312148 0.218282227539 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11079331119 0.0743258471296 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0969745065581 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201240472621 0.128457276422 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.059701691825 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.