GRE Argument Topic 121

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 33, 49 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:

Making a profit is the key to remaining in business. The owner of Sunnyside Towers has taken what he declares to be an important step to insuring the solvency of his business. Gathering more evidence about the cost of operations at Sunnyside Towers may lead the owner to decide he could have taken more or other steps to reduce expenses and increase profitability.

Of course, the most helpful piece of evidence, which the owner says is not yet available, is the water usage before and after installing the new shower heads. In the meantime, other evidence may shed light on the savings likely to be incurred by completing the conversion. The owner might begin by determining how much of the total water usage in the buildings is attributed to showers. Other appliances that use water include toilets, dishwashers, and washing machines. Knowing how much water the tenants use to complete these activities may lead the owner to seek savings in other areas. Some tenants may prefer baths to showers, so low-flow shower heads will have little impact in those apartments. In addition to household appliances, the owner may have installed a lawn sprinkler; the complex may have a pool. Those amenities might account for a great deal of total water usage in the complex. If the weather has been warmer and/or drier than normal, the sprinklers and pool may be used more than in an average year.

Another piece of evidence that would be helpful is a maintenance log. Each unit in the complex has a kitchen and at least one bathroom. If only half of them have leaky faucets, gallons of water are wasted every day. The owner may discover that repairing the faucets is more cost-effective both in materials and water saved. The maintenance log may also reveal that several steps, such as repairing leaky faucets, have already been taken and replacing the shower heads is the next logical step.

Knowing the occupancy rates in the buildings would help to evaluate the argument. Low occupancy in the three buildings that have had shower heads replaced might account for the low number of complaints about water pressure. It would be helpful to know if those complainants are taking longer showers to compensate for the reduction in pressure. Full occupancy might lead to more complaints. In fact, knowing the occupancy rates of all twelve buildings would help to make decisions about changes that increase profitability. If several apartments in each building are empty, replacing the shower heads is not likely to have much impact on profits. If most units are full, however, the savings realized from each shower head will be multiplied.

Evidence relating to all operating expenses will help determine what changes, if any, should be made at the apartment complex to increase profits. If the owner pays for heat as well as water, he has likely seen an increase in the cost of doing so. Oil prices have risen, and the owner may find greater savings by turning down the thermostats a couple of degrees or adding insulation to the walls. The cost to mow the lawns or plow the driveways may have risen. Without investigating all costs associated with the apartment buildings, the owner may discover that the money he saves on water usage is offset by greater expenditures in other areas.

Knowing which month, the shower heads were in use would help to evaluate the argument. If it was a winter month, overall water usage may be less because sprinklers are idle. During the summer, several residents may be away on vacation, so water used for showers would be reduced. Evidence about rainfall totals and frequency may help him decide to change or reduce the amount of time that the sprinklers are in operation.

Attributing savings to shower heads may be incorrect. In fact, any savings or extra expenditures at any time of the year may be difficult to credit to the installation of the shower heads unless some of the water meters for the complex are dedicated to measuring water used for showering. The owner of Sunnyside Towers needs more evidence about water usage before declaring that new shower heads will create a significant savings.

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.