argument185【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第五次作业 by tianshi02

tianshi02UID: 2362794

185.
The letter writer is trying to convince the manager of the positive effect of restricting water flow throughout all 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers, by presenting the minor problems caused and great profits gained by the restriction of the water flow on the first 5 floors. However, this argument is not quite persuasive and is flawed in many aspects.

Firstly, the writer predicts that water flow restriction on the first 5 floors will definitely lead to a considerable savings. This prediction is not well-supported by necessary data. Reduction on payment for water being the primary concern, the water usage and the monthly payment for water are essential data for a cogent argument. Prediction alone is far from enough. Since the measure was put into effect one month ago, the new bill will soon be available, it would be better if the owner of the building submit the letter after the data are ready.

Not only are we not certain about the extent of savings, we couldn’t say too much about the negative effect, since one month is too short for all possible defects to be revealed. Suppose low water pressure, the only problem reported during the month, does not bring much trouble to the people and is bearable, other problems may show up as time goes by. For example, pipes, more suitable for full pressure, might suffer from this shrinkage of pressure.

Last but not least, even though the experiment on the first 5 floors does bring great profits and cause no significant problems, it is not immediately true that it is also the case if all 20 floors have restricted water flow. Perhaps it is unbearable for people on higher floors to have reduced water flow, whereas the people on the first 5 floors aren’t affected. Many more unknown variables may contribute to the shortcomings of this measure. Therefore, the success on the first 5 floors cannot be hastily generalized to all 20 floors.

To sum up, I would suspend my judgment about the success of the experiment on the first 5 floors until concrete information is provided to support the claim that the profits would be on the rise and the water flow restriction action is being carried out for a longer time to detect the all the defects. However, more detailed analyses and reasoning need to be given to conclude that benefits outweigh the shortcomings when this action is extended to all 20 floors.