【☆09GRE作文冲刺组】圣斗士2月18日作文A185

d596086UID: 2522476

ARGUMENT：
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.


( 40分钟 539字)



In this letter, the owner of the Sunnyside Towers (ST), an apartment building, recommends to restrict water flow throughout the whole building so that ST will make profits. To support his argument, the author suggests that ST can save considerable money by restricting the water flow, and only few complaints are responded about the low water pressure. However, the argument has several flaws which make it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the fact that no problems with showers have been reported after the adjustment is meaningless to support this argument. On the one hand, there is no reason for the author to ignore the complaints of the low water pressure, even they are few. Perhaps the complaints are made by the manage, director or other people who represent the whole employees’ ideas. If so, the fact may be that a bulk of people in the apartment opposes this measure to constrain water pressure. In addition, if the company does not encourage their employees to put forward their advices, or due to some personal reasons, people who actually complaint the low water pressure, however, keep silence. On the other hand, the adjustment was made only one month ago, so that the fact that no problem with showers have been reported in this short time does not means there will be no problem forever. Perhaps next mouth, all the problems will emerge out.

In addition, the author fails to assumption that this change of water pressure will apparently result in saving or ST. To begin, the arguer himself admits that actual readings of water usage are not yet available, no matter before or later the adjustment. So any conclusion bases on this unsounded evidence are just conjecture, which is totally unreliable. In common sense, if people find that the water pressure is much lower than before, they may extend the time of using water. Thus, in fact, constricting the water cannot ensure that the amount of water usage will also decrease at the same time.

Last but not least, even though the above two assumption are all reliable, the recommendation that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors is completely unreasonable. Common knowledge tells us that the water pressure in higher floors is different with that in lower floors. If the water pressure in floors above five of the building are already very low, then the measure that further reduce the pressure probably will result in no water can outflow at all. Besides, simply considering saving money from water is insufficient for the corporation to make profits. Beyond this factor, the employee’s moral and passivity are much more vital as to the productivity of ST Company. If this adjustment negatively influences employees’ feeling of the company, then it, in turn, will bring harm to the company at a whole, let alone to make further profits.

All in all, without enough evidences the author cannot confirm that the adjustment will lead to saving money from the low water pressure, and ensure that there will be no problems in future. Also, in order to make profits, there are many others more essential factors should be taken into account. All in one word, this argument is not persuasive as it stands.

tanyujing2UID: 2600111

In this letter, the owner of the Sunnyside Towers (ST), an apartment building, recommends to restrict water flow throughout the whole building so that ST will make profits. To support his argument, the author suggests that ST can save considerable money by restricting the water flow, and only few complaints are responded about the low water pressure. However, the argument has several flaws which make it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the fact that no problems with showers have been reported after the adjustment is meaningless to support this argument. On the one hand, there is no reason for the author to ignore the complaints of the low water pressure, even they are few（few单用是否定词）. Perhaps the complaints are made by the manage, director or other people who represent the whole employees’ ideas. If so, the fact may be that a bulk of people in the apartment opposes this measure to constrain water pressure. In addition, if the company does not encourage their employees to put forward their advices, or due to some personal reasons, people who actually complaint the low water pressure, however, keep silence. On the other hand, the adjustment was made only one month ago, so that the fact that no problem with showers have been reported in this short time does not means there will be no problem forever. Perhaps next mouth, all the problems will emerge out.

In addition, the author fails to assumption （要动词）that this change of water pressure will apparently result in saving or ST. To begin, the arguer himself admits that actual readings of water usage are not yet available, no matter before or later the adjustment. So any conclusion bases on this unsounded evidence are just conjecture, which is totally unreliable. In common sense, if people find that the water pressure is much lower than before, they may extend the time of using water. Thus, in fact, constricting the water cannot ensure that the amount of water usage will also decrease at the same time.

Last but not least, even though the above two assumption are all reliable, the recommendation that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors is completely unreasonable. Common knowledge tells us that the water pressure in higher floors is different with that in lower floors. If the water pressure in floors above five of the building are already very low, then the measure that further reduce the pressure probably will result in no water can outflow at all. Besides, simply considering saving money from water is insufficient for the corporation to make profits. Beyond this factor, the employee’s moral ？？and passivity are much more vital as to the productivity of ST Company. If this adjustment negatively influences employees’ feeling of the company, then it, in turn, will bring harm to the company at a whole, let alone to make further profits.最后的这个例子不太好我觉得~

All in all, without enough evidences the author cannot confirm that the adjustment will lead to saving money from the low water pressure, and ensure that there will be no problems in future. Also, in order to make profits, there are many others more essential factors should be taken into account. All in one word, this argument is not persuasive as it stands.
恩，已经可以了~！觉得你的造句能力很不错的