ARGUMENT185 大家帮忙谢谢谢谢

chrisyUID: 160364

185. 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."




The author of the letter claims that they should restrict water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers. To support his assertion he cites the example of the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers, which launched such adjustment and had no problems. Then he points out that their company could increase profit further for the reason that this adjustment can save water. However, there are several logical flaws which make it unconvincing at its stands.

In the first place, there is no evidence to support the author's assertion that such adjustment will result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation. Without available statistics about the readings of usage before and after adjustment, it is difficult to draw the conclusion that such behavior saving water. Moreover, restricting the water flow of its original force is not equal to reducing the usage of water, which will not necessarily lead to the saving water.

In the second place, the assumption that the situation of the first five floors is equal to the situation of all the 20 floors which the argument relies on is unwarranted. Other factors may probably influence the result of the adjustment in all 20 floors, such as gravity. Lower water force may probably cause the water provision problem for the higher floors' residents, which is neglected by the author. Moreover, people in the first five floors are only a small proportion of the all residents in Sunnyside Towers. Their attitudes towards the adjustment cannot represent the entire residents.

Finally, the author draws a hasty conclusion that such adjustment increase company's profit further. Profit is a factor of not only revenue but also cost. There is no evidence that this adjustment can save water in order to reduce the cost of company. Even if it does, the cost of operating such adjustment may probably overweight the saving money.

To sum up, the author provides unsubstantiated assumptions and insufficient evidences to support his conclusion, which is unconvincing. To strength his statement he should make more detailed survey about the attitudes of residents about this adjustment and the feasibility to launch it in all 20 floors.

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

第二次提醒你,你的格式错了.请看置顶.

chrisyUID: 160364

啊? 以前提醒过我吗???  那是我没看见 不好意思 马上改过来