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

The author certainly tries to convince the reader about modifying showerheads to restrict the water flow, and in turn increase profits. He bases this argument on certain observations, however, on perusing, the reader begins to understand that there are a view questions which need to be answered to validate the point made by the author.

The first question which should be posed is – what are the actual readings of water usage before and after modifying showerheads? The consequence of the asnwer to this question has been overlooked in the argument. It is possible that there has been no significant change in usuage of water even after the adjustments in the showerhead. It could happen that the usage of water rather increased than decreasing due to some unstated fact. For example, it might have been a hot summer month, which actually caused people to take 2-3 showers per day as opposed to a single shower per day at other times of the year. This may have caused the water usage increasing from, say 50L per day to 100-150 L per day. If the assumptions proves to be true then the author’s argument does not hold water.

Another doubt a reader may have is on the number of complaints and feedbacks. How many complaints were received and what exactly have been the complaints? It is possible that there were 10 complaints, at first this number may seem small, but if there are only 15 people who live in those 3 buildings then the number comprises of a significant portion. Moreover, the author blatantly states the complaints have been just about low water pressure, but what if other complaints like shortage of water were not reported in the first place? There could be even more complaints regarding other issues which went unreported. Thus, further discussion on the validitiy can only be made when these questions are answered with sufficient pieces of evidence.

What are the similarities in the three buildings and other 12 buildings? This is highly important and must have a say in the decision made by author. There is no information regarding the age group, occupation, number of members in the family living in those 3 buildings or even in the 12 buildings. These factors are important while considering the water usage of the building. It might be possible that in the 3 buildings majority of the people belong to 50s and 60s and have settled in after their retirements; in which case they would not get dirty or sweaty by staying at home and thus have no need to shower more than once a day. Whereas, maybe other buildings consist of people in their 20s and 30s, who are working for their living, and going out daily to their jobs; in such a case they might get dirty and sweaty throughout the day and may wish to have a shower after returning from work as well. Even the number of members in the family would play a major role in the amout of water used per apartment; a family of 4 most obviously would require more water than a family of 2.

These are the few of the questions upon which the validity of the author's argument is based upon. It can thus be concluded that the author's argument is seriously flawed and a further evidences are needed to be answered to these questions. Therefore restricting the flow may not increase the profits of Sunnyside Towers but rather may increase the water consumption of the building.