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

The author of the letter predicts that installing economic showerheads will reduce the expenditure of water at Sunnyside buildings, and in turn it augments the profit of cooperation, the corporation pays the water bills. The conclusion is based on the fact that such showerheads reduce the maximum flow of water to one-third. Since there are lots of alternatives remained unaddressed in this letter, the author fails to make a clear and persuasive letter, unless he/she answers the several vital questions.

First, the author needs to ask whether the mere changing of the showerheads has any drastic effect or not, comparing to the other ways of using water. Although taking a bath is one of the main causes that water consumption increases, it is possible that water is consumed in the other ways either. A washing machine, a dish washer, siphons, cooking process, hand washing, watering the plants,and so on. the sum of all the alternatives might undo the decline of using water. Furthermore, the pressure can be reduced, but the longer span of taking shower compensates such alteration. People might fill their tub, for example. The author needs to ask what the readings show before and after this restriction as to affirm its prediction. Otherwise with the mentioned alternatives, the consumption might not change significantly.

Secondly, are the inhabitants of the tower feel content about such restrictions? The author mentioned complains about water restriction in just one month, the inhabitants might grow discontent about the situation. They might resort to change the showerheads surreptitiously or they might manipulate them to use the water with the same normal pressure and return it again to the restricted form that the owner would not find the changes easily. Even if they do not do this, the inhabitants might feel an infringement on their privacy and change their homes immediately. This can exact a high price on the cooperation rather than providing any profit.

Thirdly, is a one-month period enough to assume that water consumption dwindled by the new showerheads? Even if the consumption is lessened, it can be due to other reasons. The season might have changed to colder climate requiring lesser water to consume. Furthermore, the inhabitants in the three buildings might not be at home mostly. Hence the time span should be extended enough to show whether the author’s strategy works efficiently.

In short, as discussed, the author’s prediction seriously needs the backing of illustrations about the efficiency of using showerheads. The argument in its current shape fails to be convincing as there are several equivocal conditions defying any certain interpretation. Only after having answered to the pertaining questions, we can be directed to evaluate the prediction decently.