Argument185【Triple Week】第5次练习by ahng

ahngUID: 2605383

TOPIC: ARGUMENT185 - 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."
WORDS: 587          TIME: 00:29:53          DATE: 2009-7-21 21:52:26

Grounded on the vague fact that the water flow is restricted to approximately 1/3 of its original force in first five floors of Sunnyside Towers one month ago, the author of the letter unfairly concludes that the change will result in a savings without any readings of water usage and then speaks that restriction on water flow throughout all the 20 floors will increase their profits by the fact that only few complaints were reported. With close scrutiny, I find the letter suffer from several flaws that renders the argument unconvincing to me.

To begin with, the author provides no evidence to support the assumption that the corporation will save money considerably due to the restriction on water flow. One the one hand, the policy of restriction is actually placed on the first five floors. Since no information are provided of the 5 floors, it is also probable that the total amount of water used in these floors is not so significant to make a considerable savings for the company. On the other hand, the payment for water is not only determined by the water flow, but also the price for each volume and the time each showerhead used by the guests. If the price for water rised up in the next month or the guests in the first five floors are using more water for shower since the weather there become hotter than before, then it is even probable that the cost of water this month is more than the previous. What's more, since the readings of water usage are not yet available, with no details, it is too early to make any assumption.

Secondly, the author unfairly assumes that the adjustment make little influence to the guests due to the fact that little complaints are reported. First, no report does not indicate no complaint. Perhaps, the manager of the apartment building fails to create an easy approach for people to speak out their complaints and advices. Second, the adjustment has taken place for no more than one month. It is too short. Thus, the information that have been collected now is not representative. Perhaps, in some time, more and more complaints will be reported.

Last but not least, there is no evidence that supports the conclusion that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of the building will increase the profits further. The above floors may have many places different with the first five floors. Perhaps the first five are living in much less people than the above floors. Then the results of the restriction on the five floors are not so significant. Once the above floors are restricted, more people will probably stand out to oppose the policy. Furthermore, the statistics about the water used in every floor are also not provided by the author. If the number of users in five floors who love to take shower in their room is extremely less than that of the above floors, the water used monthly would be little as a result. In short, it is unwise to recommmend to apply the restriction policy to the all the 20 floors.

To sum up, the author make such a conclusion based on several problematic facts and assumptions. In order to bolster the idea, the statistics about the water usage of all the building before and after the adjustment should be provided. And to better assess the argument in this letter, I would need more evidence about the thoughts and advices of the guests in this building.

newletter2002UID: 2653136

Grounded on the vague fact that the water flow is restricted to approximately 1/3 of its original force in first five floors of Sunnyside Towers one month ago, the author of the letter unfairly concludes that the change will result in a savings without any readings of water usage and then speaks that restriction on water flow throughout all the 20 floors will increase their profits by the fact that only few complaints were reported. With close scrutiny, I find the letter suffer from several flaws that renders the argument unconvincing to me.

To begin with, the author provides no evidence to support the assumption that the corporation will save money considerably due to the restriction on water flow. One the one hand, the policy of restriction is actually placed on the first five floors. Since no information are(are?) provided of the 5 floors, it is also probable that the total amount of water used in these floors is not so significant to make a considerable savings for the company.On the other hand, the payment for water is not only determined by the water flow, but also the price for each volume and the time each showerhead used by the guests. If the price for water rised up in the next month or the guests in the first five floors are using more water for shower since the weather there become hotter than before, then it is even probable that the cost of water this month is more than the previous. What's more, since the readings of water usage are not yet available, with no details, it is too early to make any assumption.

Secondly, the author unfairly assumes that the adjustment make little influence to the guests due to the fact that little complaints are reported. First, no report does not indicate no complaint. Perhaps, the manager of the apartment building fails to create an easy approach for people to speak out their complaints and advices. Second, the adjustment has taken place for no more than one month. It is too short. Thus, the information that have been collected now is not representative. Perhaps, in some time, more and more complaints will be reported.

Last but not least, there is no evidence that supports the conclusion that restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of the building will increase the profits further. The above floors may have many places different with the first five floors. Perhaps the first five are living in much less people than the above floors. Then the results of the restriction on the five floors are not so significant. Once the above floors are restricted, more people will probably stand out to oppose the policy. Furthermore, the statistics about the water used in every floor are also not provided by the author. If the number of users in five floors who love to take shower in their room is extremely less than that of the above floors, the water used monthly would be little as a result. In short, it is unwise to recommmend to apply the restriction policy to the all the 20 floors.

To sum up, the author make such a conclusion based on several problematic facts and assumptions. In order to bolster the idea, the statistics about the water usage of all the building before and after the adjustment should be provided. And to better assess the argument in this letter, I would need more evidence about the thoughts and advices of the guests in this building.

文章总体不错，结构逻辑都清晰，有点模板的影子 但是也有楼主自己的创作。有些地方可能我的理解和你不太一样，有则改之，呵呵 语言有重复的地方 尽量多多掌握多些同义词吧