Argument185 劳驾大家给拍拍砖！

wxrbUID: 190922

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.'
正文
This article concludes that in order to increase the Sunnyside Corporation’s profits further the corporation should restrict water flow to 1/3 of its original force throughout all the 20 floors of the building. To justify this conclusion the article' author notes that the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, for the reason that the corporation must pay for water each month. The author also cites that it will be no problems with showers in future after water flow limits throughout all the 20 floors. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.

To begin with the author assumes that restricting water flow to approximately 1/3 of its original force could obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation. Yet, the mere that the corporation must pay for water each month hardly suffices to infer that a considerable savings could necessarily be got. Without better evidence of actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment, it is just as likely that the time of using water increase greatly due to the water flow adjustment. For that matter, the money on paying for water might even increase, in which event the author's recommendation would amount to especially poor advice.

Nor could the author justify that no problems with showers would occur in future on the basis of only a month's survey. Or perhaps in the second month many showers in apartment could not work orderly, due to the restricted water flow. Or perhaps many residents who live at high floors have not enough water pressure to use showers, since the higher the floor is, the higher water pressure it needs. In short, without an effective survey, the author cannot convince me that every shower in the apartment would have no problems after enforcing a water flow limit throughout all the 20 floors in future.

Finally, even assuming that the showers would have no problems in future, restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will not necessarily increase the corporation's profits further. Since restricting water flow might make most residents complain about the apartment's services, it is entirely possible that most of them would not rent the rooms from the corporation and, consequently, the corporation would have fewer customers and therefore decrease its profits.

In sum, the article is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide more evidence that actual readings of water usage before and after the water flow adjustment. To support his assumption the author also should make an effective survey or study showing that the water flow limit throughout all the 20 floors would result in a considerable savings for the corporation, and therefore increase its profits further.

wxrbUID: 190922

up

wxrbUID: 190922

up again

wxrbUID: 190922

up

晨曦UID: 177893

如果没人看，试试看多改两篇别人的，既是借鉴学习，也是熟悉人口，才能有人来帮你呢。

作文论坛强调的是互动，而不是义务啦。认真就会有进步哦，不管是改别人的还是写自己的 :)

偶是局外人，说这个话可能方便些。勿见怪。错了算我的。

PS:可以利用页面下方的工具条来找 0回复 的文章的 —— 按照 “回复数量” 以 “降序” 排列......