Argument185 机井频考题！！必回拍！！

alinazhUID: 187151

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."

In this letter, the author finally concludes that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase profits further. To support this conclusion, the owner cites the fact that to restrict the water flow on the first five floors can save for Sunnyside Corporation, and no one complains. However, the evidences provide little credible support for the owner's argument, as discussed below.

First of all, the author fails to convince us that the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation. Like the owner said, the actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, so there is no direct number to prove author's assumption. Meanwhile, it may be because the water flow is restricted to be smaller and force decreases, the time for using water can be longer. Thus, the total quantity of water may be not reduced. Therefore, fact of saving for Sunnyside Corporation is unfounded.

The second, even if the adjustment can actually reduce the saving for Sunnyside Corporation, there is no evidence to prove that there are only a few of complaints. In fact, one month is too short to say that in the future there are not lots of complaints. In addition, living on the higher floor may demand the water flow much more serious than living on the first 5 floors. If this suggestion is accepted by the manager, there will be more and more complaints from the higher floors. Thus, author's assumption for the complaints in the future is unconvinced.

Finally, for company's profit, it is not determined only by saving water, so the conclusion of increasing profits further is also unreasonable. Besides saving water, the profits may depend on the rents of the apartment, sales on the apartment. The payment for water is just a small portion of cost. If the fact of small water flow is dispersed to the public by its original and current clients, people can think that the company's service is deficient, which can negatively affect on the sale and renting, and then profits. Therefore, author's conclusion can lead the profits to reduce not increase further.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the owner must provide clear evidences that the use of a low water flow can reduces total water usage, as well as this adjustment will positively influence company's profits further.

chenxgUID: 183868

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."

In this letter, the author finally去掉吧finally concludes that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase profits further. To support this conclusion, the owner cites the fact that to restrict the water flow on the first five floors can save for Sunnyside Corporation, and no one complains没有根据，是a few complaints. However, the evidences provide little credible support for the owner's argument, as discussed below.

First of all, the author fails to convince us that the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation. Like the owner said, the actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, so there is no direct number to prove author's assumption. Meanwhile, it may be because the water flow is restricted to be smaller and force decreases, howeverthe time for using water can be longer. Thus, the total quantity of water may be not reduced. Therefore, fact of saving for Sunnyside Corporation is unfounded.
没有说明具体什么读数，是总读数还是针对淋浴的读数。读数变小也可能有其他的原因，比如采用了其他的节水措施等。

The secondSecondly, even if the adjustment can actually reduce the saving for Sunnyside Corporation, there is no evidence to prove that there are only a few of complaints. In fact, one month is too short to say that in the future there are not lots of complaints. In addition, living on the higher floor may demand the water flow much more serious than living on the first 5 floors. If this suggestion is accepted by the manager, there will be more and more complaints from the higher floors. Thus, author's assumption for the complaints in the future is unconvinced.

Finally, for company's profit, it is not determined only by saving water, so the conclusion of increasing profits further is also unreasonable. Besides saving water, the profits may depend on the rents of the apartment, sales on the apartment. The payment for water is just a small portion of cost. If the fact of small water flow is dispersed to the public by its original and current clients, people can think that the company's service is deficient, which can negatively affect on the sale and renting, and then profits. Therefore, author's conclusion can lead the profits to reduce not increase further.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the owner must provide clear evidences that the use of a low water flow can reduces total water usage, as well as this adjustment will positively influence company's profits further.

总的来说，不错。
下面是我刚写的，看看吧。
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=250804

DriverEntryUID: 143979

总的来说思路还比较清楚，但是一些小的用词和细节的地方还是要注意，这样可以进一步提高。比如：

In this letter, the author finally concludes that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase profits further. To support this conclusion, the owner cites the fact这个地方的FACT用得不好，FACT是已经是事实的东西，已经发生得事情，或者是大家公认的事情。但是能够节省水这个现象目前只是作者的推论。如果已经是FACT的话，那就没什么好反驳的了。其实有篇ISSUE就是讲FACT的，不知道你看到没？ that to restrict the water flow on the first five floors can save for Sunnyside Corporation, and no one这个地方楼上的也说了，不是NO ONE，是A FEW。用词要准确，特别是开头。 complains. However, the evidences provide little credible support for the owner's argument, as discussed below.

开头这FACT 和NO ONE用得不准，造成和你后面的行文有些矛盾，所以一定要写好。

Meanwhile, it may be because the water flow is restricted to be smaller and force decreases, the time for using water can be longer.
这里的BECAUSE能这么用么？BECAUSE 只能接从句的，我记得。还是改一改把。

另外你的文章里CAN 用得多了点 ，对于未来事情的推测，可以用MAY，感觉更好些。这样也更客观些，因为你说的有时只是一种推测。

加油，GOOD LUCK

PS：不用回怕我的了。：)

alinazhUID: 187151

谢谢！！