GRE Argument Topic 49

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 33, 121 and 122 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.

Sample 1:

Based on the low number of complaints following a one month trial where water flow was reduced on the first five floors, the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building predicts that further reducing water flow throughout all the floors of the tower will increase their profits. Like all changes to a business’ approach, the owner’s prediction carries with it a risk of failure, and as such needs to be thoroughly analyzed before any decisions of implementing the suggested strategy are made.

In outlining his reasoning for the recommendation, the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building rests his case on the assumption that the people living in the building are not bothered by the water flow change, since there were few complaints. The first question that comes to mind in this instance is whether all the people that were bothered by the new policy sent complaints to the building manager. Should the answer to this question prove to be positive, then the owner can state with a greater degree of certainty that implementing the new measures would not be faced with much opposition.

If it turns out that most of the people that had issues with the reduced water flow did not send any official complaints, then it is possible that extending this measure to the rest of the building will be faced with opposition. In this case, his main assumption that people living in the apartment building are not bothered by the water flow change would be severely weakened. It remains however unclear to what extent the owner’s central argument about the company’s profits would be affected, given that it would be difficult to establish if the inhabitant’s issues with water flow reduction are serious enough for them to take action.

This line of thought naturally leads to the next avenue of inquiry, namely how much are the people bothered by the low water pressure. This question is essential in establishing whether the reduced water flow constitutes a minor issue, in which case the building manager can extend the new policy to the rest of the building with little opposition, or whether the low water pressure is a serious enough issue that could end up affecting his profits. If people are extremely bothered by the new measure, then extending it could lead to increased complaints, petitions to change the showerheads to their previous levels, or, in extreme places, people moving to a different apartment building. In this case, the new policy would prove to be detrimental to the company’s expected profit increase.

The manager’s assumption that people will not be bothered by the water flow change is also based on the idea that the water pressure is the same throughout the entire building, therefore the reduced water flow will affect all floors the same. If, like in most apartment buildings, the water pressure is lower on the higher floors, then the amount of complaints the building manager receives is bound to increase with each floor number. However, should the opposite prove to be true, then the owner can be reassured in his assumption that the low number of complaints received from the first five floors would be applicable to the rest of the building.

Another idea at the core of the arguments presented by the building owner is the assumption that reduced water flow implies reduced water usage. The main question that arises is how accurate is the owner’s prediction when compared to water readings from before and after the measures. This question should help determine if the building owner was correct in his prediction or not. In the first scenario, the data would support the claim that the reduced water flow implies also less water usage, which in turn bring about reduced water costs. Should the second scenario prove to be true, and the data would support the claim that the reduced water flow implies also less water usage, which in turn bring about reduced water costs. Should the second scenario prove to be true, and the data would invalidate the owner’s assumption, then the entire claim would be severely weakened. If people’s water usage has remained the same or even increased, then not only would the measure be ineffective in terms of increasing the profits, but it would also bring an increase in costs.

The author’s claim that reducing water flow in the shower heads will significantly reduce water usage rests on the idea that showering is the main water consuming activity. In order to support this claim, the author should investigate what percentage of the total water consumption is represented by showering. Taking a bath, using the washing machine or dishwasher are all activities that utilize water that is not restricted by the modified showerheads. If the bulk of water usage is represented by other activities than showering, then restricting water flow with the new showerheads would have little effect on the amount of water consumed by each household, and subsequently the company’s water costs would not experience any significant change. However, should showering prove to be the main water consuming activity, then it becomes more likely that limiting the showerhead water flow will have an impact on the total amount of water consumed, if people’s showering habits were to remain unchanged.

This brings to the fore another question, namely, how much time is spent in the shower when water flow restrictions are in place, compared to the amount of time spent before the restrictions. If people adapt to the new measure by spending more time in the shower, then the end result will bring little or no change in the amount of water usage, and the policy would be ineffective in increasing the company’s profits. However, if the opposite were true and the building’s inhabitants were to spend the same or less amount of time in the shower, then Sunnyside Tower’s water usage would decrease.

The profitability of the owner’s prediction, doesn’t rest solely on water usage but also depends on water costs in general. Before implementing the change, the building’s manager should evaluate the possible benefits of the water flow reduction by analyzing what percentage of the overall building costs is represented by water costs. If water costs represent a significant percentage of the building’s monthly costs, then reducing water flow, even if it only brings a small amount of actual water usage reduction, should still make a significant difference for the company’s profits. However, if water costs prove to be very low, then extending the measure to the rest of the building might prove to be more costly than beneficial, especially when considering the cost of labor and equipment necessary to make these changes.

The last idea brings to the fore another line of inquiry, namely whether the expected profit from the water flow restriction cover the costs of the showerhead modifications. If the cost of the modifications is too great or the expected profit is too small, then at the end of the day the company risks being at a loss. It would still be possible for the Sunnyside Tower’s owner to profit, but the investment would have to be long term. If the opposite were to be true, then the owner would have all the more reason for implementing the change, given that the necessary investment would be covered by the profits.

Overall, the owner of Sunnyside Towers should make a thorough cost benefit analysis and conduct more inquiries about the opinions of the building inhabitant before implementing measures that would have an impact on their living conditions. In addition, the building owner should rest his claims on facts rather than supposition, otherwise he would run the risk of instating a new policy that could prove to be detrimental.

Sample 2:

The given argument concludes that restricting the water flow throughout the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase the profits for the owner of Sunnyside Towers. The owner draws this conclusion by presenting evidence in support of his claim. He brings out that despite restricting the flow of water to approximately 1/3 of its original force in the first 5 floors of Sunnyside Towers, there have been no major complaints about low water pressure and the functioning of the shower heads. A careful analysis of the given evidence reveals loopholes that weaken the argument to a great extent.

A major loophole in the argument is the fact that the actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the water usage is less. It is quite probable that the residents are using the same amount of water. After the change, the water pressure has become low but the residents must be using the same amount of water as they did before the change by using water for a longer period of time. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that the corporation would pay less for water usage until the readings before and after the change are available.

Another obvious flaw in the given argument is that there is no mention of the section of residents who have complained. Moreover, there is no clear indication of the method that was utilized for gathering this information. It could be the result of random complaints or it may have been the result of a survey. If it was a survey, then it is possible that the opinion of all the residents of the first 5 floors have not been taken into account because there is no mention of the exact number of people who have complained. Therefore, one cannot draw a concrete conclusion as statistics related to the exact percentage of residents from the first 5 floors who have complained is not available.

Additionally, the residents may not have complained, but it is likely that they are not happy with the restriction imposed on the water flow. They may complain about the shortcomings of this restriction in the near future. They could even force the corporation to revert to the earlier fittings. This would result in incurring heavy expenses instead of savings. Moreover, it is not necessary that the residents in the remaining 15 floors of Sunnyside Towers will react in a similar manner. Therefore, the assumption that the residents of the remaining 15 floors will not oppose the restriction on water flow is largely flawed.

The given argument fails to convince the reader that restricting the flow of water will indeed result in less water usage thereby saving the amount of money that is paid by the corporation for the usage of water. The argument could have been substantiated by evidence that proved that the water usage has actually reduced after imposing the restriction on water flow. Moreover, lack of sufficient evidence to prove that the residents of the remaining 15 floors will not object to the adjustment of water flow makes the argument sound extremely unconvincing.