Argument185 @@A DREAM @@小组第5次作业 bynicoleq(廿廿)

nicoleqUID: 2626973

In this argument, the arguer concludes that restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors of Sunnyside Tower will increase profit of Sunnyside Corporation further. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provide a evidence that except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately third of its original force. Moreover, the arguer manifests that the change of water flow will save spending for Sunnyside Corporation. At the first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but close scrutiny reveal that this argument is unconvincing.


In the first place, the fact that no problems with showers have been reported except for a few complaints about low water pressure since the adjustment of the showerhead water floors is insufficient to conclude that restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors of Sunnyside Tower will increase profit of Sunnyside Corporation in further. About the evidence that no problems reported on showers, there is likelihood that the people consider it is not necessary to complain on the showers while they already complain the water pressure, because all of us know that the speed of showers is based on the water pressure. Besides, there is no complaining does not equal to all the people are satisfying about the shower. Maybe, people do not like to complain and the dissatisfaction of staff influence the corporation surely which would lead to decrease the profit. Thus, without ruling out such possibility, it is unreasonable to restricting water flow, means I can not accept the arguer's point that restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors of Sunnyside Tower will increase profit of the corporation.

In the second place, the arguer provides the fact that all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately third of its original force does not support the conclusion that restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors of Sunnyside Tower will increase profit of the corporation in further. The arguer provides no evidence about people can use water as usual after restrict the water pressure. It is absolutely possible on high floor can not use water normally even there is no water on the much higher floor. This must be a bad infection for the company and it might make the profit lower. For the matter, this point that limiting water pressure throughout all the twenty floors of the company will increase the profit of it.

In the third place, the arguer claims that the change of water flow will reduce expenditures of water for Sunnyside Corporation while the actual water usage is unknown is incongruous. The arguer ignores the probability that the spending of water would not decrease while the total usage of water is steady. Therefore, limiting the water pressure can not save spending for the company.

To sum up, the arguer's conclusion about restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors of Sunnyside Tower will increase profit of Sunnyside Corporation in further is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the arguer must provide more powerful evidence what mentioned above.