[a习作temp] Argument185. 很久没练了，导致严重超时。 [复制链接]

kekesheng
UID：201777

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 367
注册时间: 2005-3-20
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-4-11 12:12:59 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager.
'One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately 1/3 of its original force. 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, restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further.'
------正文------
In this argument the argue draws a conclusion that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase their profits further. On the first glance, it may seem reasonable, but weighing on the mind, I find that the argument is unconvincing for several logic flaws.

One problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to provide strong evidence to convince us whether Sunnyside really saved water or not. Firstly, since the actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not available, we can not rashly get the conclusion. Secondly, it is possible that the capacity of water flow restricted, the time of using water may get longer. In addition, by virtue of the impact of impulse washing function of water may at result in longer time for washing. Thus without providing specific evidence of the water saving, the argument in this point is unsubstantiated.

Another flaw that weakens the logic of the argument is that the arguer asserts that the restriction will beneficial there company only due to a few complains about low water pressure and no problem with showers have reported. It is also unsupportive, firstly, one month is too short to reflect people's opinion, perhaps as time goes by, and they will strongly opposite this limitation. Also, there are some people complain just in silence. One the other hand, it is true that the higher floor is the more water it needs, and here Sunnyside Towers only restrict the first five floors, if all the 20 floors were restricted, then how about the result? It is more likely that the residents may unsatisfied with the low water pressure, complains may come up neck and neck. Therefore, the arguer asserts that restring water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers is not helpful.

The last flaw is that the arguer is sure that by doing that it would increase their profit. This is also unconvincing. Even if people may satisfy with the restriction policy, the income from water is only small part of the company. When we come to the Sunnyside Corporation's profits, other alternatives such as costs, amount and price of selling, and other products of their company should take into consideration. Suppose, if the cost of their apartments increases, and the number and price of selling decreases, and the selling market is stager. Only with the save water profit, does the company really get profits. Certainly not, because lose outweigh gain. Consequently, the argument is problematic.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence that the restriction is really saves water, and no complains and problems of all the 20 floors, and making a thorough investigation of the market and comprehensive thinking of the profits, the argument would be reasonable.

回应
0

使用道具举报

lawrence1984
UID：178326

超级会员

Rank: 7 Rank: 7 Rank: 7

声望: 9
寄托币: 5369
注册时间: 2004-9-12
精华: 0
帖子: 26

沙发

发表于 2005-4-11 12:17:56 |只看该作者

No.1 Argument185. 很久没练了，导致严重超时。
The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager.
'One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately 1/3 of its original force. 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, restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further.'
------正文------
In this argument the argue draws a conclusion that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase their profits further. On the first glance, it may seem reasonable, but weighing on the mind, I find that the argument is unconvincing for several logic flaws.（开头简洁，挺好的，学习中……）

One problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to provide strong evidence to convince us whether Sunnyside really saved water or not. Firstly, since the actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not available, we can not rashly get the conclusion. Secondly, it is possible that the capacity of water flow restricted, the time of using water may get longer. In addition, by virtue of the impact of impulse washing function of water may at result in longer time for washing. Thus without providing specific evidence of the water saving, the argument in this point is unsubstantiated.（具体，好！）

Another flaw that weakens the logic of the argument is that the arguer asserts that the restriction will beneficial there（这是不是打错了） company only due to a few complains about low water pressure and no problem with showers have reported. It is also unsupportive, firstly, one month is too short to reflect people's opinion, perhaps as time goes by, and they will strongly opposite this limitation. Also, there are some people complain just in silence. One the other hand, it is true that the higher floor is the more water it needs, and here Sunnyside Towers only restrict the first five floors, if all the 20 floors were restricted, then how about the result? It is more likely that the residents may unsatisfied with the low water pressure, complains may come up neck and neck. Therefore, the arguer asserts that restring water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers is not helpful.（这里的驳斥也不错！）

The last flaw is that the arguer is sure that by doing that it would increase their profit. This is also unconvincing. Even if people may satisfy with the restriction policy, the income from water is only small part of the company. When we come to the Sunnyside Corporation's profits, other alternatives such as costs, amount and price of selling, and other products of their company should take into consideration. Suppose, if the cost of their apartments increases, and the number and price of selling decreases, and the selling market is stager. Only with the save water profit, does the company really get profits. Certainly not, because lose outweigh gain. Consequently, the argument is problematic.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence（s） that the restriction is really saves water,（有语病吧！） and no complains and problems of all the 20 floors, and making a thorough investigation of the market and comprehensive thinking of the profits, the argument would be reasonable.

Life will give you exactly what you want.

使用道具举报