The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager.
“One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately 1/3 of its original force. Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. Clearly, restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further.”
The author seems to be very optimistic about the profits that Sunnyside Towers will make by restricting water flow in showers. However, the author fails to acknowledge the fact that limiting the flow of water need not necessarily reduce water consumption. He also erroneously assumes that as the changes on the first five floors brought about a positive result to Sunnyside Corporation, similar things done on the remaining floors would add to the profits.
Based on a month review, the author arrives at certain conclusion like saving the money spent on water and profit for the Apartment building. A month’s time is however not enough time to affirm those conclusion. Perhaps in that one month, the residents could have gone out of town whereby water consumption of the building reduced.
The author has no record of the water used in showers of all the apartments where the modifications were made. Yet, he claims that Sunnyside Corporation has made a saving by modifying the shower. After the changes made, the residents of the first five floors could have used more water than what they used before. If this were the case, then Sunnyside Corporation is at a loss because finally they are paying for the total water used and not the rate at which water is used. The author does not consider the residents living in the apartments. Water consumption varies from person to person and the author must take note of this.
Apartment residents also show their frustration by sending complaints about low water pressure. This indicates that the residents are in a way unhappy about the restriction. If this frustration of the residents outweighs the profit Sunnyside Corporation makes, then definitely the idea of altering the water flow is not fit. In such a case, Sunnyside Corporation should think of other methods to reduce water consumption in Sunnyside Towers.
The change in water flow was made only on the first five floors. The residents of apartments on these floors might be more tolerant enough to bear with low water pressure in showers than the residents on other floors where the changes will soon be made according to the author. If this be the case, then the people living here will sooner be upset and ask for a reversal in the changes made.
The author’s argument is unsupportive of any data proving that a reduction in water flow rate reduces water consumption. Even if water consumption was reduced he takes it for granted that consumption will be minimal if the modifications were extended to the rest of the building. Had the author presented any justification, his endeavor to reduce water consumption and increase savings for the building would be unquestionable.