- UID
- 703448
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-12-20
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Argument 52 题目：
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 one-third of its original flow. 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 twenty floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
提纲：
1. 出水量不等于用水量
2. 投诉少不等于意见少
3. 前五层不等于二十层
=======================================================================================
时间 32 字数 524
=======================================================================================
The owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building suggests to the manager that the showerheads of all the twenty floors should be modified to restrict water flow in order to reduce the cost of water usage. The owner provides evidence that a first-five floors' test explains well on why this shift of showerheads makes sense. The suggestion and the reasoning process in this argument seem good, but some flaws are in the argument, and many questions can be asked by readers, which can weaken the argument or even make the argument unconvincing.
In the first place, the author says that the new showerheads which restrict the water flow to approximately one-third of its original flow can definitely reduce the amount of water usage. But why just less water flow in a fixed period can reduce the total usage of water? There is a big chance that although the water flow is one-third of the original flow, the time people use water is five times of the original. In this way, the total water usage isn't reduced, and in the contrary, it grows. This simple question asked by readers can easily weaken the author's reasoning process. To make the argument more convincing, the owner of the building should provide more persuasive evidence showing the time people using water is the same or not grow to a high level comparing to the past.
In addition, the author claims that only a few complaints are recorded and therefore the change of showerheads doesn't matter too much. Readers may ask that does the record of only a few complaints really make sense. Which means that many people who are not satisfied with the new showerheads doesn't complain to Sunnyside Corporation. A probability that they are annoyed with the shift of showerheads, but the process of complaining is much more annoying that counts. In this way, the author cannot simply say that the change doesn't make too many complaints. Unless the evidence indicating people are truly satisfied with the new showerheads, this argument is tenuous and unreasonable.
Finally, granted that the problems I referred above are solved by the author by answering the question or providing solid evidence, the argument is also unconvincing. The test is just in the first five floors; however, restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors may be not successful. People in the first five floors may doesn't care the new showerheads, but the residents in the twenty floors might not. In this way, the author's reasoning process can be less persuasive. To make the argument better, the author has to provide a result of survey that shows us that people in all the twenty floors will not be unsatisfied if the showerheads change.
To sum up, the argument is seemingly good, but some faults are in the reasoning process, and some questions can be asked by readers. If the author doesn't answer to these questions, this recommendation in the letter is tenuous and unconvincing. Only by providing more evidence to show us the completeness of the reasoning process can the manager make the decision to change all the showerheads and increase their profits. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-5-12 09:33:28
收藏
收藏
楼主
