标题: Argument 35 求拍 [打印本页] 作者: gaocan1992 时间: 2012-5-15 12:36 标题: Argument 35 求拍 35/52/128/129.The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager. "One month ago, all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be. 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. I predict that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits even more dramatically." 一个月前，Sunnyside 塔楼最低的五层的所有淋浴喷头 被调节成水压只有以前的大约三分之一。尽管在调节之后 用水量的确切读数还没有出来，但这种变革显然将为 Sunnyside 公司节省大量的花费，因为公司必须每月为所 用的水付费。除了关于低水压的几起投诉，在调节之后没 有发生关于淋浴喷头的问题的报告。我预计在Sunnyside 塔楼所有的12 层都限制水压将会增加我们未来的利润。
The arguer make conclusion that that modify the buildings to restrict maximum water flow will save money for Sunnyside Corporation. He also claims that there are few complaints about low water pressure witch means that the workers have no problem with shower. So he suggests that the Sunnyside Towers should restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings and it will increase their profits. However, more detail evidences should be given to make this argument convincing.
We know that the actual readings of water usage before the adjustment are not yet available. So the arguer’s conclusion that restricting the water flow can save money is imagination of him or her before we know the actual information. Maybe the whole readings of water usage are improving. With the water flow restricted to one-third of what it used to be. The workers may have a much longer time taking showers and use more water that can lead an opposite condition that the usage of water are improved. Therefore to restrict water flow throughout all buildings can not prove saving money for Sunnyside Towers complex.
Although a few complaints about low water flow is during one month merely and there are no problem with showers that the arguer says. With time passing, the quantity of complaints may become very big. Maybe there is winter now and workers do not need to take showers frequently but when summer come the workers often take shower and then the quantity of complaints will rise and many problem will happen. On the condition that satisfactory working environments is essential for a company to achieve the role of maximum profits, the restriction of water flow can lower the enthusiasm of the workers.
Finally, that to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings does not mean to lower the expenses. To modify all the showerheads may cost a lot of money. Even if restricting water flow can save money for Sunnyside Towers complex, maybe this little money is much less than the costs to modify the showerheads because the water is comparatively cheaper. So use this method the arguer’s company maybe use much more money and can not get their profits.
To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning the readings of water usage and a scientific survey of the workers and the expense if modify all the showerheads. 作者: 竹林中人 时间: 2012-5-15 20:17
is imagination of him or her。。。可以不用imagination的，这不地道，再就是不必用这种所有格形式。 may have a much longer time,不要a that can lead an opposite condition that the usage of water are improved？ a few complaints about low water flow is during one month merely ？？？太不地道了 问题跟上一篇差不多，加强组织，再就是你的语言欠缺还很大，先要保证每个句子写对写的比较地道为好，然后追求表达的高水平。