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 no

In the aforementioned argument the owner of Sunnyside Tower Complex asserts that by reducing the flow of water in showerheads throughout all fifteen floors will lead to an dramatic increase in profits. At first glance the argument looks fairly convincing and legitimate but on closer scrutiny of the argument and its underlying structure a number of shortcomings become visible which stand out as conspicuous flaws. Some of its most pivotal shortcomings are it's inability to address or even acknowledge the assumptions. The first one being the authors belief that by reducing water flow by two third will result in significant savings. The second one being that only a few complaints were received regarding low water pressure. The succeeding paragraph dissects each of the two above mentioned points for their suitability as relevant proofs made by the owner of Sunnyside Tower Complex .

The assumption that reducing the water in showerheads will result in considerable savings is grossly unconvincing. There may be cases that people use more tumblers and buckets for their daily activities than showerheads. Therefore the showerheads are just lying around idle, thereby resulting in no less consumption of the water. There is in fact no evidence cited about the reduction in water readings after the restricted water supply in showerheads. Due to restricted supply people will probably use showerheads for a longer duration than usual. Therefore the assumption that reducing water in shower heads will lead to considerable savings is unjustifiable.

Secondly the argument is rendered weak due to unavailability of the number of complaints received. The owner does not mention whether a survey was conducted to obtain complaints or random complaints were submitted by complex members. If latter is the case, then the owner fails to mention whether all people staying in the five floors were taken into consideration. Therefore the assumption that few complaints won't bother the execution of reducing water in showerheads is not substantiated by the owner due to lack of credible evidence in its support.

Thirdly, the assumption that restricting water flow in all fifteen floors is the weakest link in the argument. The owner should cite what is the percentage of expenses of all water bills in total expenses of the Sunnyside Tower. If the expenses are just 20 or 30 percentage, then there would be no point in implementing the owners prediction. If the water expenses carry a significant percentage , then that would be a rationale for adhering to the owner's prediction. Therefore in the absence of it the assumption if reducing water flow to remaining fifteen floors, is largely fallacious.

In essence, the argument in its present form does not hold true and is rife with a number of shortcomings, most blatant of which are discussed above. The argument would have been strengthened had the owner of Sunnyside Tower Complex cited evidences such as survey report of member complaints and meter readings of water before and after water restriction