Argument 185,初次交作业，希望大家不吝拍砖

hychlavenderUID: 2697566

TOPIC:ARGUMENT185 - The following appeared in a letter from the owner of theSunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager.

"One monthago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers weremodified 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 notyet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings forSunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month.Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showershave been reported since the adjustment. Clearly, restricting water flowthroughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profitsfurther."
WORDS: 521
TIME: 00:39:34
DATE: 2009/12/11 14:49:56

This argumentsuffers from numerous flaws which, considered together, render the conclusionthat restricting all 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers' water flow will contributeto their profit increasing untenable. Such flaws come from the inference andfactors the author cited in this letter, including the lower water flow to thefirst five floors to Sunnysides Towers and the consequence which it brought.

In the firstplace, the author makes his conclusion depending on a hasty assumption that thefirst five floors' condition and the results drawn from the one month’sadoption of water flow restriction will properly apply to total 20 floors. Itstands a good chance that higher floors lie on a totally different situationand demand for water, perhaps the first five floors' dwellers are supermarketwhich demand little water but the higher floors are rented to the restaurantand citizens which is the major water requester. Without ruling out suchpossibility the one month restrict for water flow in first five floors can notlend strong support for the conclusion.

In the followingplace, the author just make a hypothesis that the restriction of the first fiveflow's water flow will definitely lead to a money saving without any data aboutit. We can not accept a vague assumption that built on no data but justimagination. It is entirely possible that this month' water usage in therestriction do not decline, on the contrary, it reaches its historical peakbecause people would use more water in the process of showering and washingthan ever before. Not until the data of water usage in this month waspresented, such factor can only serve to undermine the author’s conclusion forthe water restriction.

Similarly, theargument suffers from the false assumption that ' no report equates noproblem'. The few complaint about water pressure and no problems reported aboutshowers do not indicate no problem was generated by the adjustment. Perhaps, nocommitee and department is established by manager lawyer of Sunnyside Towers,as result, few complaints and reports can get into the ears of manager. Tostrengthen the supporting of this factor, the author should inform us themechanism of reporting problems in Sunnyside Towers.

Last but not theleast, the conclusion that the adoption for total 20 floors restriction willcontribute to the increasing profits for ST is open to doubt. Even if we concedethat the decreasing cost for water in the restriction is practical, we can notguarantee the overall growing of profit because the total benefit includes manyother aspects. Such as the insufficency of production and moving out of dwellerand companies due to the lower water pressure, which would cause the income’sdecline. With the ignorance of such alternatives from the author, it is to hastyto make such conclusion.

In conclusion,insufficient data and some unsubstantial assumption render the conclusioninconvincible. To strengthen its conclusion, the following information
is need:1) theaccurate water usage data before and after the restricion;2) intact informationabout the lower water pressure;3) more factors demonstrating the higher floorsand first-five shares the same situation and characteristic.



貌似我上传不了附件？。。。高手教一下~