According to the letter, the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex asserts that the apartment would benefit greatly by modifying showerheads throughout all twelve buildings. As the pieces of evidence, the owner states the modification would present considerable savings for the apartment and refers to only a few problems reported regarding the change. This argument might seem persuasive at first but to move forward would certainly require more evidence and thought for three reasons.
First, the owner needs to provide more evidence on the probable savings for Sunnyside Corporation to prove the change will lead to a considerable saving. The owner adamantly believes the unavailability of actual reading would have no significant effect at all. However, it is entirely possible that the residents may use more water after the change, not hesitating to take a longer shower. In such a case, "believing" they are using less water, the residents would use more water, paying rather much for water each month. Even though the water usage indeed decreased due to the modification, it can be claimed that the cost of the change may outweigh the savings from decreased usage without more information on the expenses of the modification. Then, the change will not result in considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation. Rather, it may result in more expenditure.
Next, the owner needs to supplement the argument with more concrete evidence on the potential problems regarding the change. He rashly dismisses the complaints about low water pressure as marginal. However, it is plausible that the complaints would be substantial in a long run. Also, in all likelihood, the owner hastily ignores the possibility of the problems with showers since nothing was reported within only "a month". Would other potential problems such as defects or fragility in showerheads certainly not be reported months later? Even if there may be indeed marginal complaints and no problem, it may be only temporary. Then the modification may be of no avail.
Lastly, more specific evidence is needed on the soundness of the conclusion that the Sunnyside Towers complex will reap benefits from modifying showerheads throughout all twelve buildings. The argument is a bit far-fetched in stating that all buildings should change their showerheads. It must be taken into account that the inherent conditions of the buildings would differ. Even though the first three buildings can save considerable water usage by the modification, the residents on others would already have been skimping on the water usage. Moreover, the saving may be in pale comparison with the expenses on the changing for 12 buildings. In other words, the cost may be substantial but the saving may be marginal. It may be better to not adopt the modification.
By examining all the various angles and factors involved with the modification of showerheads in Sunnyside Corporation, it can be concluded that the owner argument is not cogent. To bolster it, he needs to give more verified information on potential problems and the expenses of modifications in the long run.
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper Your recent article on corporate downsizing in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship o 70
- We learn our most valuable lessons in life from struggling with our limitations rather than from enjoying our successes 94
- 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 73
- The well being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority 83
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2570 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.15 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.835 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 117 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 79 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.192 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.174 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.692 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.482 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2660.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33066132265 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99689063673 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442885771543 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 824.4 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.8780656627 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.307692308 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1923076923 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.76923076923 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.213875884877 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0618949074209 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.047370734868 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123645209197 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0524443004525 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.