▶ Your Answer :
The owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building argues that modification of showerhead to limit the water flow will bring about significant profits to the Sunnyside Corporation. While supporting the argument, however, the author makes several assumptions that have logical flaws and thus the argument is unconvincing.
First of all, the author believes that the modification will result in a considerable savings for the Corporation based on an assumption that the restriction on water flow will decrease the amount of water usage. However, there is no evidence of a relationship between water flow and water usage. It is possible that water usage remains the same as before if the residents use the same amount of water by extending their time to use water to compensate for the lower water flow. Therefore, further evidence containing whether the modification of water flow leads to an actual decrease in water usage of residents is needed to support his argument.
Second, even if the lower water flow makes a decrease in water usage, the author still assumes the result will be the same throughout the year. There is little evidence when the modification has been made. If it is winter time of the year, it is possible that a decrease in water usage is not attributed to the modification but to the weather as winter water usage is typically lower than the other time of the year. Thus, detailed evidence about water usage by month is necessary otherwise his argument will be weakened.
Third, the author implies that there is no problem after modification based on the fact that there have been only a few complaints from the residents. However, the author only relies on the number of complaints to examine the residents' opinions on the modification. It is highly possible that the degree of complaints was very serious regardless of the number of complaints. If so, the author's argument has to be reevaluated. Plus, he fails to consider if enough time has been passed for the residents to express their opinions after the modification was made. The article indicates the change was only a month ago, so it would be possible that the residents do not ready to determine the positions on the modification. Unless there is more information on the degree of the residents' complaints and whether enough time has been given to the residents, the argument is not convincing.
Lastly, the author made an assumption that three building's results will be identically applied to the rest of twelve buildings, which leads to dramatic profits for the Corporation. However, there is no evidence indicating the habit of water usage of the rest of the buildings will be the same as the first three buildings. If the residents of twelve buildings are more likely to waster the water in order to retaliate the unfavorable changes, the corporation will lose their savings. Also, even if all residents have a similar habif of using water, the author needs to provide evidence showing the expense to install the new showerheads is less than the savings. Without knowing how much cost will be taken to install the new showerheads to the other twelve buildings, it is early to decide the modification will guarantee profits for the Corporation.
|