argument185 第二篇a。依旧没能在规定时间写完。倒数第十天。

ringtailbunnyUID: 2579853

TOPIC: ARGUMENT185 - 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."
WORDS: 523
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/2/20 3:13:58

The author of thsi argument manages to persuade the manager of Sunnyside Towers to restricted water of the whole 20 floors of the towers in order to increase the company's profit. To embrace this assertion, the author takes the example of restriction of water flow in the first 5 floors of the Towers. In that process, he also get the conclusion of the satisfaction because of the small quantity of complaints. At first glance, this editorial is a well presented one, while further analysis reveals that it is poor in logics. There are several logical flaws in the process of the deduction and therefore make the whole editorial unpersuasive at best.

To begin with, the author fails to convince me that the restriction of the first 5foors indeed decrease the amount of the using water. In fact, the author provides no programmatic statics but some unreliable reasoning. From the decline of 1/3 water flow of the showerheads we cannot conclude that people use less water. Simply put, if people find the water flow are restricted than before, they may simply wait for more time to obtain the same amount water to fit their fixed need. Besides this, to respond to this restriction, people may choose to wash in the
bathtub rather than the showerhead, which could finally leads to a larger amount of consumption of water. Without considering these possibilities, one cannot use the evidence in the editorial to conclude that there is a decline in use of water in the apartment due to the reduced water flow. To fix this problem, it's necessary to provide specific data about the first floors' habits of using water.

Next, the author also assumes that the few complaints of the residents of the first 5 floors reflects the satisfaction of the people living in these floors for further restriction. Lacking detailed information about those complaints, it's arbitrary to assume they are small problems. On the contrast, common sense tells me that, confronting with problems and dissatisfactions dissatisfactions, people tend to complain at the beginning, at without solution, they would be serious to protest for the problems. Thus, the author cannot equal currently several complaints to the possibility of no problems in the future. Besides, people in the first floors might travelled around within the experiment days. And thus, nobody could report his complaints. Even we concede that people would be satisfy about the restriction for a long time, how about the future emergence, such as fire which cannot be put off by the restricted water pressure, happened? Failed to take all these alternative explanation for the complaints, the author's deduction that people would not react agitatly vastly is undermined. Some detailed evidences which support people are indeed able to adjust to the decline of water flow should be offered to ameliorate this problem.

Even if we assume that the restriction is successful in the first floor, it's arbitrary for the author to advice the future restriction should be applied to all the 20 floors of the apartment. There would be less pressure of water in the upper floors and thus more inconvenience will be forced on those residents. As a result, more complaints and heavier resistance would be made by the people living in the upper floors. Hence, the author cannot assert all 20 floors could be restricted on water flow based on the information given.


Finally, even assuming all the flaws above are fixed, it's still incoherent for the author to state by doing the restriction, the manager could increase him profits further. In that there is no any information about the profits in the editorial, the author's assertion is just about the consumption of water, but this measure may make workers in these floors ineffective in their jobs and consequently leads to a worse performance in the ultimate profits.

ringtailbunnyUID: 2579853

最后两段明显想睡觉了就缩水了。。。。

NEU公孙轩辕UID: 2697609

樓主加油~~~

MiuRuRuUID: 2706646

加油加油！！！！！

ieyangj08UID: 2743219

字数很牛，我一直在愁A的字数，楼主加油