Last week 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

The author of this memo assumes that changing in shower-heads of three building to save more water. He states that this system has diminished water consuming to one-third. The close scrutiny of this memo reveals that all mentioned assumptions are based on doubtful proposition.

First of all, the argument relies on unfair assumptions that there were a few complaints about low water pressure in the buildings. The author provides no firm evidence that this is the case. A few number of complaints does not means that residents satisfied with new system, since the author says that they establish this system for one week. It is possible that in long time number of complain for this system will be increases, or perhaps resident are not in their home and they consume little water in that period. To strengthen this point we should see that in the long run how the shower-heads work to justify this argument even handy.

Second, the writer assumes that saving water in three building result in new system and changing of shower-heads in first three building. The author fails to consider there are numerous factors affecting this assumptions such as, amount of consume in first three buildings are related to their occupation and job, for example, an extended family needs more water than a small family. It is plausible to assume that residents of these three buildings use little water to wash their dishes and clothes and wash them all in other places.

The arguer states that this is a favorable plan to establish these shower-heads to other twelve buildings in the apartment. The arguer fails to see that efficiency of a shower-head for three buildings does not necessarily mean that they work for other. As the author states that the corporation established this system to first three buildings. It is possible that water pressure in these buildings is suitable, and residents have no problem with water shortage. Or perhaps the shower-heads of current buildings are modern and they do not require new system since there is no report from their deficiency in the current system.

To sum up, based on questionable assumptions and poor evidence, the author's reasoning does not provide concrete evidence to support his argument. To bolster this argument the author must provide more categorical information about activity of residents and their water pressure before and after setting new shower-heads.