Prompt: EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT & CRITIQUE

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-third of what it used to be. Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. I predict that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits even more dramatically."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.

In a letter to the manager of Sunnyside towers the following prediction along with its premise was recorded.  The prediction is labeled P and premise on which that prediction is based is labeled P1.  Modifying showerheads to restrict the water flow to a third of current flow standards throughout all twelve buildings owned by the Sunnyside Corporation in the Sunnyside Towers complex will P) increase corporate profits since P1) the corporation pays for water each month.

The author of the letter does not factor into his prediction the cost of modifying the showerheads throughout all twelve buildings.  Presumably and minimally, this kind of job will require labor and parts.  Although it is feasible that profits may increase longitudinally, depending on the cost of such a job, the Sunnyside Corporation may not stand to profit immediately.  In that case, it would be advisable to evaluate the short term and long term economic goals of the Corporation and compare these with the proposed method for achieving them. 

As the author of the letter notes, actual water usage readings have not yet been reported.  In order to assess the prediction, an actual water bill along with readings for the three already modified buildings will need to be analyzed because it may turn out to be the case that water costs were not reduced by the modifications.

The author of the letter makes note of a “few” complaints raised concerning low-water pressure in the modified buildings.  When one or two people complain, it may be easy to brush aside these complaints as the expression of discontent from a small minority.  However, if all twelve buildings are modified without concern for and thorough review of these complaints, the number of complaints may grow beyond imagination.  Grassroots campaigns begin with a small number of people, and eventually grow into entire political movements.  This is exactly the way in which the American democracy staged its rebellion against British rule.  In order to assess whether or not low-water pressure poses a significant problem for the proposed plan of action, the modification of shower heads, it would be advisable to analyze the complaints, and perhaps even administer a survey to the proposed affected people in the remaining buildings. 

Prior to the presentation of the requested information, it is advised that the manager withhold adjudication on the decision to modify the showerheads of the remaining buildings.  Although, in principle, the prediction, and methods for achieving the prediction may work, a prudent company requires more information.