第四篇argument 求狠拍 求指导 快要考试了！！！捉急！！时间不够 慢啊

eeeeason

TOPIC: ARGUMENT185 - The following appearedin a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to itsmanager.

"One month ago, all the showerheads onthe first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the waterflow to approximately 1/3 of its original force. Although actual readings ofwater usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the changewill obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation,since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a fewcomplaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have beenreported since the adjustment. Clearly, restricting water flow throughout allthe 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further."
WORDS: 508          TIME: 00:36:00          DATE: 2012/9/11 21:14:25
提纲
1.一些抱怨并不能表明其他人是对调节满意的。
2. 改变是在一个月前做的，许多负面效果可能还没出现。没有证据能够证明水压小了用水量也会小。
3..样本存在差异，这一做法在其他楼层不一定能成功





In this argument the arguer comes to theconclusion that profits of the Sunnyside Towers will be largely increased byrestricting water flow throughout all the twenty floors. To justify theconclusion, the arguer cites the fact that the showerheads on the first fivefloors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow toapproximately one thirds of its original force. Moreover, the arguer assertsthat the change in water flow before and after the adjustment will result inthe water savings for the Sunnyside Corporation. With only few complainingfeedback after the adjustment of the water flow, the arguer claims that themethod is successful and economical. However, close scrutiny of the conclusionreveals that it is problematic and unconvincing in several aspects.

To begin with, the arguer fails to show anyinformation of the complaints from the residents, which renders the argumenthighly suspect. Simply assuming that the few complaints represents the majorityof the residents are satisfied with the adjustment is hardly to be valid andconvincing. It is entirely possible that the rest of the residents are asunsatisfied as those interviewed, however, they would not like to come up withthe complaints, or they fail to provide more detailed conditions of the waterusage.

Given the fact that the adjustment wasimplemented one month ago, the arguer arbitrarily claims that the circumstancesand the exact water usage are constant and remain unchanged. Some more severedisadvantages and complaint might have occurred some days later. Moreimportantly, the arguer unfairly claims that even if without the actualreadings of the water usage change, it is undoubtedly to save considerable waterby implementing the adjustment. In addition, even if the restriction of thewater usage is going to take effect, it cannot be guaranteed that the totalusage is going to decrease as well. It is obviously possible that the demandfor water increases, concerning that the low-flow of water cannot meet certainuse, for example, the water used for showering needs to be higher flow rate.Without ruling out factors that might weaken the argument, the argument couldhardly be valid.

Finally, the arguer fails to take most ofthe higher floors of the building into consideration and unfairly claims thatthe situations are the same. Concerning that it will be more difficult forwater to be conveyed to higher floors, the prediction of applying theadjustment to all twenty floors is, to a large extent, unwarranted.

With most of the logical flaws unexplainedand conclusion made based on false assumption, the argument is misleading andinvalid. The arguer should have to demonstrate that the current situation ofthe residents remain the same after one month, and the flow rate of the rest ofthe floors are similar to the first five floors. Moreover, before I couldaccept the conclusion, the arguer should provide more information of the totalfeedback including complaints and agreement on the adjustment. Only in theseways could be the argument and prediction be both effective and efficient.

普渡哥

里有给的很好。

普渡哥

The arguer should have to demonstrate that the current situation ofthe residents remain the same after one month,


should + have to...怎么翻译？一个是应该，一个是必须。。。

我第一次看到这样的句式。

eeeeason

The arguer should have to demonstrate that the current situation ofthe residents remain the same after one month,


should + have to...怎么翻译？一个是应该，一个是必须。。。

我第一次看到这样的句式。

-- by 会员 普渡哥 (2012/9/12 12:15:41)

这个确实没注意 应该是has to 或者直接是should 谢谢普渡哥提醒

竹林中人

maybe，你可以把自己质疑的顺序调一调，先说这个措施未必真的节水，其次再说抱怨未必真的很少，再次说未必能引用到其他楼层，最后节水未必能真正减少多少开支

eeeeason

maybe，你可以把自己质疑的顺序调一调，先说这个措施未必真的节水，其次再说抱怨未必真的很少，再次说未必能引用到其他楼层，最后节水未必能真正减少多少开支

-- by 会员 竹林中人 (2012/9/12 21:55:13)

我的想法是 因为抱怨是属于调查类型的 应当放在最前面 其次说明措施前后未必效果相同，且即使效果相同，未必能保证总水量也一样下降，最后说明这个措施的普遍适用性的质疑 不知道这个顺序是否符合instruction的要求呢？求中人指教