▶ Your Answer : In the given memorandum, the author argues that it is necessary to modify current showerheads to restrict water usage which might result in further profits. Although the author provided plausible recommendations to prove his opinion, further evidence is required to verify his assumption. To begin with, the statistical data assumed to corroborate the author's assertion may fail to deduce the saving effects conclusively. As the author mentioned, when it comes to measure the effect of adjustment, there is little actual data of water usage before and after the adjustment. Without any comparable data, no one can measure an exact result of adjusting water pressure. Moreover, it is also required to consider multifaceted other factors. For instance, suppose that residents living in three buildings where adjustment was implemented were in travel during experiment period. In this case, a drop of water usage is likely to be stemmed not from showerhead change but from absence of users. Thus, further evidence concerning with measurement of water usage could strengthen the argument or render it largely invalid. Furthermore, it is not clear in how far the author presented appropriate examples regarding preferences of residents. More specifically, the author assumed that residents were not unhappy with the subtitution of showerhead based on a few complaints reports. However, it is possible that a frequency of complaint might be underrated and residents are not satisfying with their change at all. If residents are reluctant to report their inconvenient shower due to low water pressure and decide to substitute recent showerhead to their own showerhead, then it is hard to expect reducing water usage and increasing profits. Moreover, the author need to elucidate the connection between low pressure of showerhead and saving water. If dwellers are to elongate their shower time instead of shorten their water usage, then it is useless to change showerhead. Therefore, more information concerning complaints may bolster or weaken the argument accordingly. Although the author was proven right in above points, it is not clear in how far the change may recieved well for overall complex buildings. According to the memo, the Sunnyside Towers have implemented their waterhead substitution confined to three buildings only. Even though there was an impact of reduction in water usage in three buildings, no one can assure that other nine buildings also have a reducing effect. What if residents living in buildings where has not yet implemented new policy are to complain on this change? Likewise, if these residents are to decide to use water for longer time than before due to low water pressure, then new policy does not likely to have an anticipated effects at all. In consequence, more evidence regarding application could substantially support or undermine the argument. In sum, a myriad of assumptions fails to substantiate the argument due to their incompleteness. To better assess the case, it is necessary for author to adduce elucidating evidences correctly |