- UID
- 761277
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-5-19
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
In the argument above, the arguer advocates that modifyingshowerheads to limit water flow will promote the profits of the SunnysideTowers. In support of his conclusion, the arguer predicts that actual waterusage will decrease, and then a considerable savings will follow. The evidencecited is that no other problems are reported besides some complaints, based onwhich, the arguer implies that modifying showerheads to save water will bringabout no extra troubles. At first glance, the rationales seem plausible, yet afurther examination disposes the argument toward invalidity.
One of the most fundamental problems relies on theassumption that less water flow will lead to less water usage. Yet this mightnot be the case for a variety of possibilities. It is entirely possible thatsince the water flow is restricted, residents there take a shower for a longertime than before; as a result, the water usage probably does not decrease atall. Instead, the water usage might increase, therefore the cost will rise as aresult. Without any concrete evidence of the change of water usage, the arguercould not convince me that the total usage of water becomes less. It is betterfor the Sunnyside Tower to wait until the actual readings of water usage comeout.
Granted that the usage of water decreases in total, it doesnot guarantee that the total cost will decrease as well. For example, maybe thewater becomes more expensive because of the national drought this summer.Consequently, the total cost on water does not decrease. Or maybe the water facilitytends to be more fragile after the restriction on the water flow, and then morefunding will be spent on the maintenance of the facility. To bolster thisconclusion, the arguer needs to answer whether other additional cost has beenproduced and whether the price of water changes or not. If there is no extracost and no change in the price, then the conclusion is better supported.
Anther problem is that the arguer unfairly assumes that eachresident will report every problem they encountered, hence everything with thefirst three buildings is fine except for some complaints. Perhaps some residentswho did not report any problembecause they plan to move out for they think the service of the building isgetting worse and worse. Or some potential problems, which could cause severe damages,have not been discovered yet. To substantiate this argument, the arguer needs to provide some more persuasiveevidences that there is noproblem with the first three buildings.
Besides what has been analyzed above, I would like to recommend tofind whether there exists any other way to save money such as recycling water. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-9-13 01:22:46
收藏
收藏
