The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager.
“One month ago, all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be. 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, modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits further.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The writer of the letter presents two arguments. First, he states that the restriction of water flow to the showerheads throughout the complex will result in savings for Sunnyside Corporation. Then, he asserts that the adjustment will have no negative impact on the tenants, other than a few complaints of low water pressure. Taken together, these two contentions suggest that when water usage is lowered, all the residents will be better off. However, several flaws in the reasoning preclude the logical inference that restricting the water flow will result in an overall savings for Sunnyside Corporation.
First, the premise, that the corporation will save on water, is illogical. The corporation pays a fixed amount each month for water usage that is based on the amount of water consumed. The corporation is not saving money by reducing the number of showerheads, since the water bill will be the same. Furthermore, the corporation has no incentive to limit water usage if, in the long run, it pays the same for the same amount of water usage. Every drop of water used will cost the corporation additional money. Presumably, the corporation paid to build and maintain the complex, and, therefore, the increased water bill will be the difference between the amount it pays and the amount it earns from renting units. For instance, if the corporation charges 5 dollars per square foot, and the units bring in 10 dollars per square foot, then if the corporation saves 10 bucks per unit per month, that is 100 bucks a month. Over a five-year period, the corporation is losing out on $5,000. Even if the corporation does not lose that much, it will still lose money. Therefore, the corporation is not motivated by saving money by limiting the water flow to the showerheads.
Second, the letter makes a number of assertions about the residents’ satisfaction with the new showerheads, even though Sunnyside Corporation’s own tenants have not been consulted regarding the decision. For example, the amenities director states that ‘.
.
the residents have had no problems with these new showerheads.’ Even if this is true, it is meaningless. If the residents have no complaints about the new showerheads, then why would the corporation be tempted to modify the showerheads again? Furthermore, the amenities director’s statement cannot be considered valid proof that the new showerheads will not negatively impact the tenants, since the amenities director does not have the authority to make binding decisions on such matters. The corporation’s maintenance manager may have a different opinion, and the corporation should solicit input from all of its tenants before making a decision that will affect them.
Finally, the letter does not provide evidence that the new showerheads will result in an overall savings for Sunnyside Corporation. It does not present any calculations of how much water the corporation used each month before, and how much water it will use each month after it made the change. Furthermore, the corporation has not presented any estimates of the savings in utilities it will enjoy as a result of reducing the water flow to all of the showerheads. If, for instance, the corporation reduced the water bill by 10%, then the corporation will make a profit. Therefore, the corporation’s reasoning is flawed; if the corporation’s calculations show that restricting the water flow will reduce its utility costs, then the corporation should implement the new showerheads.