Argument185 飞越dreams小组第4次作业

Marvelous_czUID: 2451875

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."

一个援前，Sunnyside塔楼最低的五层的所有淋浴喷头被调节成水压只有以前的大约三分之一。尽管在调节之后用水量的确切读数还没有出来，但这种变革显然将为Sunnyside公司节省大量的花费，因为公司必须每月为所用的水付费。除了关于低水压的几起投诉，在调节之后没有发生关于淋浴喷头的问题的报告。显然，在Sunnyside塔楼所有的20层都限制水压将会增加我们未来的利润。


The letter concludes that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase the profits future. And the reason is that there are few reports of problem since the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers modified to restrict the water flow to approximately 1/3 of its original force. For the following reasons the evidence shows little credible support to the author’s conclusion.  

To begin with, the author claims that this change of restrict the water flow on the first floors would save much money for Sunnyside Corporation, but the author does not provide more evidences and some precise details to support that. It is entirely possible that the people in the first five floors use the showerhead for long time in order to clean themselves downright, since the water flow is approximately 1/3 of its original force. In this case, Sunnyside Corporation may waste more money than before rather than save money.

Secondly, the author claims that there are few complaints about low water pressure and no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. Maybe the people in the first floors do not report this problem to Sunnyside Corporation, however, they have much complaints and talk about this problem in themselves. In this way, people would not like the deed of Sunnyside Corporation, which would lead to a bad impression of the company. Thus, this scenario, if true, the conclusion that few people complain this problem is unacceptable.

Thirdly, even if the people in the first floor do not complain this change, the author forecasts that it would increase the profits if restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Corporation, but does not provide any evidence to support that. The people in the higher floors may more concern the water flow, and if the Sunnyside Corporation restricts the water flow, they would protest for that or some worse acts, which would be a awful thing to Sunnyside Corporation. If the author cannot provide some results of surveying the people in the other floors, the conclusion that Sunnyside Corporation would increase its profits by restrict the water flow of all 20 floors is unreliable.

To sum up, the author’s conclusion is not well supported. To strengthen it the author should provide more evidences to support that people would not use the showerhead for longer time than before and the people in the first floor really do not care about this change. Then, prove that all of the people in Sunnyside Tower would not complain this change of water flow. It would be necessarily for the author to consider these situations before we could better evaluate the conclusion.

字数：448   时间：30mins.

[ 本帖最后由 Marvelous_cz 于 2008-2-9 00:33 编辑 ]

wxtxxmUID: 2339833

The letter concludes that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase the profits future. And the reason is that there are few reports of problem since the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers modified to restrict the water flow to approximately 1/3 of its original force. For the following reasons the evidence shows little credible support to the author’s conclusion.  

To begin with, the author claims that this change of restrict the water flow on the first five floors would save much money for Sunnyside Corporation, but the author does not provide more evidences and some precise details to support that. It is entirely possible that the people in the first five floors use the showerhead for long time用比较级是不是更好？ in order to clean themselves downright, since the water flow is approximately 1/3 of its original force. In this case, Sunnyside Corporation may waste more money than before rather than save money.指出这种行为并不一定会节省费用Secondly, the author claims that there are few complaints about low water pressure and no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. Maybe the people in the first floors do not report this problem to Sunnyside Corporation, however, they have much complaints and talk about this problem in themselves. In this way, people would not like the deed of Sunnyside Corporation, which would lead to a bad impression of the company. Thus, this scenario, if true, the conclusion that few people complain this problem is unacceptable. 驳斥了公司没有收到喷头问题的报告，不代表人们就满意。
我觉得就这点漏洞，原文：除了关于低水压的几起投诉，在调节之后没有发生关于淋浴喷头问题的报告，处理了低水压的投诉，但是之后不是没有收到关于低水压的投诉，而是没有收到关于喷头的投诉，偷换了概念，这点问题似乎更大！
Thirdly, even if the people in the first floor do not complain this change, the author forecasts that it would increase the profits if restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Corporation, but does not provide any evidence to support that. The people in the higher floors may more concern the water flow, and if the Sunnyside Corporation restricts the water flow, they would protest for that or some worse acts, which would be a awful thing to Sunnyside Corporation.好像不是那么令人信服，还可以吧~~ If the author cannot provide some results of surveying the people in the other floors, the conclusion that Sunnyside Corporation would increase its profits by restrict the water flow of all 20 floors is unreliable.驳斥了即便全楼都限制水压，也不一定提高利润To sum up, the author’s conclusion is not well supported. To strengthen it the author should provide more evidences to support that people would not use the showerhead for longer time than before and the people in the first floor really do not care about this change. Then, prove that all of the people in Sunnyside Tower would not complain this change of water flow. It would be necessarily for the author to consider these situations before we could better evaluate the conclusion.再次总结了文中的漏洞