- UID
- 674832
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-9-23
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
按照模板写的,感觉文章写的很死,求意见,谢谢!
Argument 新G题号: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." 写作要求: 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. 老GRE对应题号:185
In this argument, the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building claims that profits would increase greatly if restricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors of the apartment building. To support this claim, the owner assumes that the Sunnyside Corporation will save a lot of money by restricting water flow to one-third of its original flow on the first five floors, though there is not any data for reference. The owner also points out that there are no reports about shower problems except for a few complaints, which indicates the recommendation is feasible. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it accomplishes little toward supporting the owner’s claim, as discussed below.
A threshold problem with the argument involves the unsubstantiated water usage. The owner provides no evidence about the difference in water usage before and after the adjustment. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the water usage increased, in which case restricting water flow is unlikely to have any effect, even adverse effect on earning more profits further.
Secondly, the mere fact that there are no problems with shower reported is not necessarily equal to actually no problems exist, especially considering that there have been some complaints. The owner fails to provide warranted evidence about tenants’ attitudes and response toward restricting water flow. Perhaps most of them are unsatisfied about the adjustment but only a few of them complained. Or perhaps, the media haven’t got involved in, so there are not reports regarding the problems with shower. Moreover, perhaps other problems except for shower, such as laundry washing, have already been reported. Without ruling out all the possibilities, the owner cannot convince me that there are actually no problems regarding restricting water flow on the first five floors, let alone implementing the recommendation throughout all the twenty floors.
Finally, even if the owner can substantiate all of the foregoing assumptions, the owner’s assertion that restricting water flow throughout all floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase profits is still unwarranted, in two respects. First, the current tenants on other floors might refuse to change the showerheads in their apartments, which would result in the whole plan unfeasible. Second, even if there are no problems with shower on the first five floors, there might be problems with higher floors, as in common sense the water pressure drops with increasing of floors.
In sum, the owner’s evidence does not warrant his conclusion. To support his recommendation he must provide a sound report that the water usage decreased after adjustment. To better assess the argument I would need more information about the tenants’ stance towards the adjustment, a survey of satisfaction might be useful for this purpose instead of waiting for complaints passively. |
|