argument35题！下周就考，第一篇Argument求狠批！！！

ashley_beeUID: 3574821

The author’s argument seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion, however when we examine its basises, there still many problems need to be further proved.
   First, the arguer assumed that modifying the showerheads will achieve the goal of saving water for the corporation pay for the water monthly. Lacking of evidence on the contrary, it is entirely possible that the company may consume much more water than before. It is common sense for us that cutting a large amount of money into small portion will be dramatically easier for bill-payer to accept, so only a mouth water fee may seems much more acceptable for companies and due to which they may pay little attention to reduce the usage of water contributing to more water consuming. In order to prove this assumption the arguer should provide the detailed water bill for those companies to compare with the former ones. Without careful analysis of the exact bill of those companies, the conclusion of the arguer is premature at best.
Also, the arguer mentions that there are only a few complaints about the adjustment for low water pressure. However, he fails to prove information about how many companies complained about the low water pressure and also how many proportion they account for. As we know, the arguer is the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex, so whether there are possibilities that he distorts the truth to hide his faults in work or he is just not reluctant to admit the fails about the reconstructing project. What’s more the arguer bases his conclusion on that the complains of these companies cannot result in any substantial problem, such as moving out of the apartment, which can lead to a economic loss of the Sunny Towers complex. Only after carrying out sufficient and representative survey of the residents of the apartment can we be convince that most people hold a positive attitude towards the transforming showerheads.
Assuming all the conclusion about the first three buildings are convincing, the author cannot justify that these adjustments are also suitable for the other nine buildings. As we all know that different building share different circumstances, people living in the other nine buildings may have much more emphasizes on water and they regard the adequate water supply as one of the most important factor to select an apartment, under such circumstances, restricting water flow may cause a counteraction rather than increasing the profits. The author need to offer convincing information about residents attitudes towards these adjustments on the basis of survey instead of a random analogy to convince his manager.
The paragraph given merely scratch the surface of the arguments about restricting the water flow will increase the profits of Sunny Tower, more work need to be done to further prove it is a pragmatic way to achieve the desirable goal.