Argument185 飞跃dreams小组-第4次作业

lyokaUID: 2451632

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."
Word: 392  Time: unlimited

In this argument, the arguer reaches the conclusion that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase their profits further because the corporation can save a considerable fee for water. However, the conclusion has a few flaws which make it not quite credible.

In the first place, the author takes it for grant that the water usage will decrease after the showerheads on the first five floors were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately one third of its original force. But the author does not compare the actual readings of water usage before and after. The weaker force does not necessarily result in a less usage of water. It is completely possible that since the water flow becomes smaller, people have to spend more time on shower so that they use more water than before. In that case, the change will decrease the profits of the corporation instead of increase them, which just backfires.

Even it is true that the change can lead to a considerable saving on water fee; however, it is far from making the same change throughout the whole twenty floors. The author fails to consider the difference between the lower floors and the higher ones. Maybe the weakening of the water pressure will result in the inconvenience of the water use on higher floors, which may cause much trouble for the corporation. Furthermore, the inconvenience may probably lead to fewer residents, which will do harm to the profits of the corporation. The author just does not consider the change thoroughly and neglect some disadvantages.

Besides, the report only says that no problems of the showers have been reported except a few complaints about low water pressure, but there is another possibility that not all problems are reported. It is equally possible that some residents are not satisfied with the water use but do not complaint directly; instead, they search for new apartments. In this case, the change brings more disadvantages than advantages.

All in all, the conclusion the author reaches is not quite convincing. To some extent, the change may even backfire. In order to make it more credible that the adjustment will bring considerable profits, the author should give actual readings of water usage of each floor before and after, and ensure that residents are not dissatisfied by the adjustment.