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-thir

The owner of the Sunnyside Towers (ST) apartment buildings avers that by restriction of water flow to one-third, the corporation may increase its proceeds without significant negative aftermaths. This prediction is buttressed by evidence which should be carefully scrutinized in order to gauge the soundness of the argument.

First of all, we are told that the owner of the ST expects to receive a considerable savings for the corporation as a result of recently implemented policy on the first five floors of the Sunnyside Towers. We know that any concrete results is not available now; however, the writer bases his or her belief on the fact that water flow has been restricted by two-third of its original flow. At the same time, the savings may be acquired in case the residents of the towers are used more than one-third of the flow. Perhaps only a small part of the towers' dwellers do it; moreover, such machinery as washing machine and other devices which used water will use as much water as usual due to the fact that they may merely such up water for a longer period of time. Consequently, the originator's hopes may not become true.

Furthermore, the arguer asserts that the experimental fulfillment of the policy does not bring appreciable negative consequences and only a few complaints on the insufficient water pressure were stated. However, the writer tends to equal the reported complaints and level of people's satisfaction of the service. The policy has been implemented relatively recently and thus probably not all people who dislike the alteration manage to complain in particular if the office which accept the residents' complaints works at inconvenient time. Additionally to it, probably the people who live in the tower may not understand the reason of the low pressure and thus their complaints may be about other shower’s characteristics such us the spoiled water pipes. In other words, the author does not manage to prove that people are not upset with the change or that the situation will not change in the near future.

Finally, the argument claims that restriction of the water flow through all 20 floors will increase the corporation profit further. However, the author does not manage to create a solid support for this claim, in fact the consequences of the new policy are not clear and they may be negative. What is more, the corporation income is connected with many other factors such us local and global economy. If for instance, the town were the towers are located will be abandoned by business the number of residents may dramatically drop. Government may increase taxation of homeowners and these taxes will cut the company profit. In other words, the author does not demonstrate the proposed policy will inevitably lead to profit increase and fail to pay attention to other factors which have direct impact on the corporation's proceeds.

In conclusion, the argument avers that restriction of water flow will lead to profit increase and will not cause any significant complaints. However, the evidence used by the writer has failed to bolster this statement as well as author's conclusion. Consequently, the predicted increase company's profit is unwarranted.