Argument185 @@A DREAM @@ by 吴虑

112810asUID: 2646494

In this argument the author comes to the conclusion that all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers should restrict water flow to increase their profits further. To justify the claim, the author points out that the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers have been modified to restrict the water flow one month ago. The author also cites that no problems with showers have been reported, excepting for a few complaints, since the adjustment. Close scrutiny of this argument, however, reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.

First and foremost, the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that the change that the first floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. For example, it is entirely possible that tenants on these floors compensate for lower flow by either taking longer showers or by opening their shower values further than they would otherwise. It is also that the water pressure, and therefore their change usage, on the remaining floors has increased as a result. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

In addition, the author unfairly claims that no problems with showers have been reported, excepting for a few complaints, since that change. The author fails to consider other possible alternatives to the complaints and no problems. Such alternatives may include that only a few tenants on the first floors. For example, there are only 20 tenants, however, eight of them have complaints about the change, none of them reported the problems with shower in one month. It is also possible that the tenants who are on the first floors need less water flow so that a few complaints and no problems have been reported. Without ruling out such possibility, we can not accept the author’s conclusion.

Even if the change has obviously resulted in considerable savings, the author assumes that restricting water flow through all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further. Yet the author fails to give any evidence to justify the assumption. Perhaps, restricting water flow through all the 20 floors might adversely affect the owner’s net operating income. For example, the more low-flow installations the more likely that one or more tenants will become disgruntled and vacate as a result. In fact, the author has admitted that at least a few tenants have complained about the change. High tenant turnover might very well serve to increase the owner’ overall operating costing. Furthermore, in the further, the supplier will raise rates, or perhaps current tenants will be placed who use more water, even if restricting water flow through all the 20 floors will obviously result in considerable savings. In short, lacking evidence the author can not convince me that the change will increase the profits.

To sum up, the author’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite more evidences that is more persuasive and take every possible consideration into account.

模版逐渐快出来了，第一回上500字O(∩_∩)O~，一共528~
还是在语句上不行，这几天把模版在修改，最后弄一下