"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 n

The argument presented by owner of sunshine towers apartment complex referring that modifying the showerheads in the buildings will result increased profit is flawed. This is because, the thorough evaluation of the proposal with data is missing and argument is based on several unconvincing assumptions and generalizations backed by possibly flawed trials.

First, the owner tries to mention that modifying showerheads to restrict maximum water flow to one third will result in water saving, because it was done in three of the buildings. But, how can that support the argument, he also mentions he have no data to proove it. Furthermore, how can showerheads alone contribute to water usage? What is the basis of that assumption? Such assumptions cannot be regarded in decision making without any statististical or survey data about the data of water usage by populace in the apartments.

Secondly, the owner tries to generalize the three buildings to all of the 12 buildings in the complex. But, there is no any point mentioning how these three buildings were selected for the first trial. Are they the representative of general populace? If not, the generalization will not work, as the usage pattern of three apartments even they resulted significant water saving, might be totally different from the rest. Furthermore, the position that since there are major complaints on the three apartments trial will continue to all twelve apartments can be disregarded for same generalization assumptions as above.

Nevertheless, the owner mentions that if the showerheads modification is implemented, it will increase profit dramatically. But, how can a saving in water costs can alone increase profits dramatically? By our common sense, anyone can say that the proportion of contribution of water saving to such huge complex of twelve apartments is mostly mundane. Obviously, it may be significant in tha case of apartments being located near deserts or areas with less water, but such things aren't mentioned anywhere. Only because, corporation has to pay for water every month isn't at all convincing to support this position. So, again this assumption cannot be regarded without further data to support water savings contributes significantly towards profit.

To sum up, the proposal to restrict showerheads to restrict maximum water flow to increase profit dramatically is not reasonable for the flaws mentioned above, and this proposal need further investigations, data and explanations before moving ahead.