- UID
- 711853
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-1-17
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
In this argument, the author predict that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside
Towers complex will increase the their profits dramatically. To support his/her prediction, the author cites the modification applied one month ago to restrict maximum water flow of all the showerheads in the first three building to one-third of what it used to be and supposes the saving would be very considerable. In addition, he also mentions that there are only a few complaints about low water pressure since the adjustment. While his/her prediction may be true, the argument to prove it is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus not strong enough to lead to the conclusion.
First of all, we don’t know if the adjustment will bring about considerable saving. Theauthor doesn’t tell us how much water is actually used before and after theadjustment, and then we can not calculate the accurate amount of water whichhas been saved and how much does it worth. Without such data, it is unwarrantedto predict the corporation can curtail its expense. Perhaps in despite of therestricting, people choose to take more time when they are using showerheads inorder to compensate the decreased flux. If so, the change will then bring nosaving and even waste more water.
Moreover,we may cast doubt on the observation that only a few complaints occur and noproblems with the showers have been reported. So we are wondering how large isthe size and can the survey represent the public opinion. Whether the goodconditions of showerheads will continue in the coming future or not. However,the author fails to answer these questions. It is totally possible that only 5people are interviewed for suggestions, who also express their disagreement.Since there are hundreds of resident working or living in the tower, the samplewould only constitute a tiny portion and can not represent the public opinion.Besides that. Only a month’s usage is not convincing enough to guarantee thatthose showerheads will keep working well in the future. Unless those questionsare well answered, the validity of the author’s prediction would be unwarranted.
Evenif the author can substantiate the analysis above, it is still too hasty toapply the adjustment to all towers. We would like to know if there are anydifferences between the first three buildings and the rest of the complex. Sometimesostensible similarity could overshadow their inherent differences. For example,people in the rest buildings may have stronger demand for water since they areresidents, while most of people work in the first three building as white-collars.Hence, it would be irresponsible to define the effectiveness in a more generalsituation.
Lastbut not least, the argument fails to consider the cost of such adjustment, whichcan offset its potential benefits. We are curious about how much the projectwould cost as well as how much it would save. Perhaps the expense is up to$1000000, but the saving per year only worth $10000,only accounting for onepercent of the total cost. Apart from that, the inconvenience caused by therestricting should also be taken into consideration, since the negative effectswould be extremely obvious in higher floors. If the author can provideinformation to answer these questions, then could we agree with his/herprediction.
To sumup, the argument fails to establish a convincing prediction. As we are eager toknow more information about the effectiveness and necessity of the adjustment, theauthor ought to provided the exact data to evaluate the saving as well as thecost. To further solidify the argument, questions about sample size and theselection procedure should be answered. Information concerning the differencesbetween all of the buildings in the complex is also strongly recommended. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-4-5 23:00:47
收藏
收藏
楼主
