Issue185 @@A DREAM@@第三次作业 kren_crazy

kren_crazyUID: 2623887

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: 316
TIME: 01:00:00


In the argument above, the arguer concludes that the measure by restricting the water flow power can save the usage of water for the company and then makes more profits. However, without powerful evidence, his claim is not cogent enough. At the most beginning, let us ignore that the action of reducing the water flowing force is immoral and violates the residents who have the rights to
a good service, but let's discuss why the arguer's logic can not develop in that way.

The arguer claims that the savings of water account considerably, but his claims without any background to support it, the actual amount of water usage before and after the adjustment should be present to make the readers assured. Without the powerful digital, there are too many possibilities to ruin his conclusion.

Firstly, the low water pressure means the smaller circulation of the water. So the lower water pressure makes all the customers longer the time to use water. Instead of waiting for large amount of water to be filled into large containers, consumers are willing to let the showerheads work itself and walk away to do other things. Not doubt, in this kind of cases, water tends to be wasted because some customers forget turning off the water flowing or returns too later to prevent this happens.

Besides, on the first five floors, there are no other problems emerging except the complaints of the customers. But it doesn't mean in the following days something will turn out to be wrong. For example, in order to flow more water from the showerheads, lots of customers probably operate the showerheads violently or even make it broken frequently in the following days. It also can increase the frequency of using the showerheads to let out more water. In this point, fees for the company to maintain their showerheads will soar. So it is hard for the company to earn much as they expect before from the restriction in this circumstance. On the other hand, if lower the water pressure in the 20th, the arguer should make sure there the showerheads can remain flowing bearable amount of water for the customer. If not, it is not the matter of complaints from the customers but the calls from the courts.

Furthermore, as the arguer describing above in the memo, the restriction of water flow offenses the customers and might lose its credit, which is the most loss of the company. Some well-being customers may be learn this event from the furious customers and refuse to pursue rooms provided by this company.

In a word, the restriction of the water flow is not the reasonable way for the company to increase its profits.