- 最后登录
- 2016-1-13
- 在线时间
- 1149 小时
- 寄托币
- 812
- 声望
- 59
- 注册时间
- 2013-10-13
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 203
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 671
- UID
- 3478439
- 声望
- 59
- 寄托币
- 812
- 注册时间
- 2013-10-13
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 203
|
额。。。第一次在这个版发帖,拙作没贴上= =
在这里
The author asserts that Sunnyside Towers(ST)will increase its profits dramatically if it makes shower heads restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings. However, the argument is based on some unsubstantiated assumptions, which make it unwarranted. Similarlt, it remains some questions that need to be answered by the author to decide whether the prediction is reasonable.
To begin with, the fact that all the shower heads in he first three buildings of the ST were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be is scant to draw the conclusion that ST will save a lot because of the change. The author overlooks there are some possibilities. Consider, for instance, albeit the maximum water flow is restricted to one-third of what it used to be, it is possible that people use water more frequently. Or perhaps that they use water for a longer time than before. Ether of those possibilities, if true, will undermine the author's assertion. Therefore, the author ought to consider those questions and provide more evidence to answer them; otherwise, his claim is unconvincing.
Moreover, by relying on the fact that no problems with showers have been reported except for a few complaints, the author assumes without justification that people are willing to adjust to the change. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that many people don't want to waste time to report their complaints about the change. Besides, the author claims that actual readings of water before and after the adjustment are not yet available. Yet he should offer us precise data about it to support his assertion. Even if he can provide precise data, it is not sufficient because the adjustment is made only for one month, so it is scant to draw the conclusion. The author should consider those questions mentioned above, and then provide evidence to answer them.
Finally, the profit consists of the revenue and the expense. As a result, the author ought to offer us more evidence to make sure that the expense of the change is not so high. If not, although ST can make more revenue, it is hard for it to improve its profit because of the high expense. In addition, the author advises that modifying shower heads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the ST will increase its profits. Yet he ignores that the condition may be various among different buildings. Thus, even if the author can provide more evidence to claim that the adjustment is efficient in first three buildings, it is possible that it might not be useful in other buildings.
To sum up, the argument is logically weak in several aspects, and the author should answer some questions about it. Only after evaluation all the facts can the author predict that modifying shower heads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the ST will increase its profits.
|
|