argument185【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第五次作业 bycomb300

goingeastUID: 2439824

argument185【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第五次作业 by comb300


185The 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 argument suffers severe logical leaks, the owner fails to deliver accurate conclusion from some scattered information to manager. Further researches are needed to increase the argument's credibility.

First of all, the author indicates that actual readings of water usage are negligible to the conclusion of saving expenses. However, it is an important factor which should be focused on. If this building has a relative small expensive of water usage compare to the showerheads replacement, then it is not wised to change the showerheads in the first place. Even if due to some other consideration like economize water resource, it is still not necessary lead to the conclusion of considerable saving for Sunnyside Corporation as in most cases, other expenses like electricity, gas and maintenance have a higher cost comparing to water, which means it might reduce the cost of the corporation in certain level but the considerable saving could not be guaranteed.

Moreover, to restrict water pressure by modifying showerheads is not that useful as people could just take it off if they need high water pressure; and the reason no shower problem is reported might because they do not use it at all. In another perspective, no one report the problem does not mean there is not any problem, it is highly possible that people just choose to tolerance, and such attitude is injurious for business as residents are not satisfied.

Finally, the author describe that restricting all 20 floors will increase company's profits further, but after gone through the whole letter, there is not any information about the company's profit information. It is unrealistic to make such conclusion without any proven evidence. Furthermore, even if the modification in the first five floors are successful, it still unable to identify whether it could reduce the expenses. Further information about the cost of showerheads, installation charges, the amount of water usage and other factors which relate with the information is obligato to make the conclusion sound.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more information concerning the relation between showerheads and water usage. To better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that lower water pressure does not influence resident’s work and live is warrantable; otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

roinyouUID: 2447501

认为第三个证据和第一个有点重复，他们都是说没有提供利润的具体证据，第三段最后一部分似乎有点不同，但是完全可以加到第一段，因为第一段其实是两个原因。 逻辑上面，三放前面可能更好点，能加强递进关系相信，可以使得文章获得高分。谢谢，欢迎探讨！

The argument suffers severe logical leaks, and the owner fails to deliver accurate conclusion from some scattered information to manager. Further researches are needed to increase the argument's credibility.

First of all, the author indicates that actual readings of water usage are negligible to the conclusion of saving expenses. However, it is an important factor which should be focused on. If this building has a relative small expensive->expenditure of water usage compared to the showerheads replacement, then it is not wised to change the showerheads in the first place. Even if due to some other consideration like economize water resource, it is still not necessary lead to the conclusion of considerable saving for Sunnyside Corporation as in most cases, other expenses like electricity, gas and maintenance have a higher cost comparing to water, which means it might reduce the cost of the corporation in certain level but the considerable saving could not be guaranteed.

Moreover, to restrict water pressure by modifying showerheads is not that useful as people could just take it off if they need high water pressure; and the reason no shower problem is reported might because they do not use it at all. In another perspective, no one report the problem does not mean there is not any problem, it is highly possible that people just choose to tolerance, and such attitude is injurious for business as residents are not satisfied.

Finally, the author describe that restricting all 20 floors will increase company's profits further, but after gone through the whole letter, there is not any information about the company's profit information. It is unrealistic to make such conclusion without any proven evidence. Furthermore, even if the modification in the first five floors are successful, it still unable to identify whether it could reduce the expenses. Further information about the cost of showerheads, installation charges, the amount of water usage and other factors which relate with the information is obligato to make the conclusion sound.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more information concerning the relation between showerheads and water usage. To better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that lower water pressure does not influence resident’s work and live is warrantable; otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.