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 t

According to the letter written by the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex, the recently curbed maximum water flow in the apartment complex would allow Sunnyside Corporation to enjoy "a considerable savings." However, the passage in fact has myriad unanswered questions that weaken the passage's validity. Thus, it is imperious to hastily accept the passage's argument before these questions are thoroughly analyzed and understood.

Most crucial question to delve into is whether the decreased maximum water flow would contribute to the decrease in total water usages for the residents. To be exact, the passage does not mention the reasoning why the curtailed water flow would help residents to save water. In reality, decreased maximum water flow might cause people to tap into water more, since they would lose a substantial amount of water from being used as the water comes out slowly. If the answer to the question takes a negative view, the passage gravely loses its validity on its argument.

On top of it, another question one has to check is whether the other expenditures as well as maintenance costs are expected to stay the same. The apartment complex offers and maintains numerous functions and amenities, from which the residents can benefit. The costs of these benefits, such as swimming pools, would increase due to water flow changes. If the other extra costs have been calculated to be much higher than before, the Corporation would face themselves paying more than before. Even if the water flow restriction at the end has helped the corporation financially, the increase in other parts could nullify the savings, thus raising the total spendings for the corporation. Clearly, the passage would lose the strength on its argument.

Lastly, the corporation has to parse the intensity of the complaints about the water flow. The restricted water flow might upend the overall satisfactions of the residents. The residents might have other problems with the apartment complex they live but decided to live, for they deem too excessive and overreacting to move their places. Nevertheless, with the new complaint about the water pressure, the residents might decide to move out from the apartment. If the blacklash towards the newly imposed restriction seems robust and enduring, the Corporation witness falls in their residents, their income sources, and their fundings, greatly affecting the argument's validity.

To wrap it up, despite all the evidence the passage has compiled and analyzed, it fails to lend a convincing argument. In fact, it leaves many critical questions unasnwered and dubious.Therefore, it can be concluded that it is too foolhardy to accept what the passage presents until the answers as well as their implications to these questions are understood.