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

The argument above is well-presented and appears to be relatively sound at first glance: since the modification of showerheads will restrict the maximum water flow to one-third of what is used to be, the author anticipates that the Sunnyside Tower will be able to reduce its expense on water usage and yield increased profits. However, as more light is shed on issues and more detailed facts are concerned, the lack of answer through the argument leads me to question its validity.

First of all, the author needs to answer the question whether the report regarding the complaints on the modification can be taken at face value. According to the author, only few complaints were received after the change occurred. However, the author should take account of the fact that the modification occurred last month, and people may not be able to notice the recent change. If this would be the case, the possibility of the increase in the number of complaints regarding the showerheads cannot be rule out. Therefore, the author should not hastily conclude people’s satisfaction on new showerheads, and view the result in the long run.

In addition, another question that the author needs to answer is that the modifying showerheads will result in considerable amount of savings for Sunnyside Towers. It is likely that people spend longer time on taking showers, so the actual amount of water usage will stay constant or may increase. If this would be the case, the cost that the Sunnyside Tower will spend on water usage will not change and the author’s assertion of increased savings will be weakened. Therefore, the author should provide more information about the effectiveness of the modifying showerheads on savings.

Lastly, the author should question the validity of the conclusion that the modifying showerheads will increase the profits dramatically. Without considering the fact that the number of complaints does not represent people’s preference on the building, the author rashly conclude that people will enjoy the new change, and will continued to live in the Sunnyside Towers complex. However, in all likelihood, people do not like the change and decide to move out. In such a case, the profits that the Sunnyside Towers would gain will decrease, and consequently, the overall profits will decrease. In addition, the author should also consider the installation cost of new showerheads on the entire buildings. If the expense is exorbitant, the Sunnyside Towers will be able to expect the increase in profits.

In conclusion, the argument is not cogent in many respects. To bolster the argument, the author should provide the detailed information on number of complaints, the causality of savings and the modification, and soundness of the conclusion.