- UID
- 737411
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-3-17
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
题目：argument 35 时间：超时36min 字数：539
Based a series of presented evidence and unsubstantiated conjectures, the author makes a plausible recommendation that the Sunnyside Towers(ST) should modify showerheads of all twelve buildings, in order to increase the profits. To support this recommendation, the author cites that the first three building of ST have modified its showerheads to restrict maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be and this change will result in obvious saving. In addition, the author claims that this change have no influence on the tenants since few complaints have been reported. To better assess this recommendation, the author should provide more information to answer the questions below.
First of all, one of the most obvious questions I want to ask is whether the actual water usage has decreased as the author expected. In order to prove the water usage will decrease, the author only provide that the maximum water flow has decreased. However, common sense tell me that the water usage also depends on the time of tenants' using showers. It's entirely possible that with the lower water flow, the tenants will spend more time on showering, as a consequence they may use the same amount of water as they usually do. In addition, the author says that the actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available. Without the this important data, the author's hurried conjecture that this measure can save money is unconvincing.
Moreover, a considerable question is whether the tenants of ST are indifferent to this change. The author's assertion that this change has no impact on its customers relies on the limited evidence that few complaints about low water pressure and no problems with showers have been reported. But the author can't guarantee that the customers won't complain with this change in the future. What's more, the fewer complaint can be also explainable by other fact that most of the tenants choose to leave the ST rather than reporting their complaint. If this is the case, the ST may suffer a big loss of their customers because of this unreasonable change that decreasing the water flow. The author can’t rely on this limited evidence to support his conjecture.
Furthermore, even if the tenants of the three buildings are really happy with this change and the ST can also save money by taking this measure, the author have not thought over whether this result of the three buildings can be applied to the other buildings of ST. Without this special evidence that the same change in other buildings can also develop the same result as the first three buildings, this recommendation is unpersuasive.
Finally, the author should explain the necessity of adopting this recommendation for ST. Perhapsan another measure can also be effective to increase the profit of ST. For this matter, why should ST implement this recommendation ?
In sum, the recommendation is untenable as it stands. Without the specific evidence above, the author's recommendation remains dubious in its validity. To justify the recommendation, the author should provide more concrete evidence, may be the actual water usage of the three buildings before and after this change, to demonstrate that the ST should modify the showerheads of all its buildings.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-3-18 14:11:58
收藏
收藏
