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-third of what it used to be. 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. I predict that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits even more dramatically."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable.

In this letter, the owner of an apartment building complex concludes that low-flow showerheads should be installed in showers on all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex  in order to increase profits. To defend such conclusion, the owner cites the fact that since installing low-flow heads in showers in the first three buildings a month ago only a few tenants have complained about low water pressure, and that no other problems with showers have been reported. However, this evidence provides little credible support for the owner's argument. With a series of untenable assumptions and the lack of evidence, this argument fails to be wholly convincing as it stands.

In the first place, the argument depends on the assumption that the installation of low-flow heads in the first three buildings has resulted in lower water costs for the owner. In this case, it is equally plausible that tenants in these apartments compensate for lower flow by either taking longer showers, which would cause the overall water use to stay the same, or even increase. It is even possible that during the month since installation many of the tenants there have been absent from the building. This could explain why, if it is true, that less water has been used over this brief period, and also, why only a few tenants have complained.

In the second place, the owner ignores the possible indirect consequences of installing low-flow showerheads on all buildings. For example, the more low-flow installations there are, the more likely that one or more tenants will become disgruntled and vacate as a result. In fact, the owner has admitted that at least a few tenants have complained about these new showerheads. The rest tenants turnover might very well serve to increase the owner's overall operating costs.

In the third place, in order to reasonably conclude that low-flow heads will reduce total water usage in the building the owner must assume that other water uses will remain constant in the future. However, this will not necessarily be the case. Perhaps the water supplier will raise rates, or perhaps other tenants who use more water will replace current tenants. Without ruling out such possibilities the owner cannot justifiably conclude that his total water cost will decrease after installing low-flow heads in every shower.

In brief, as I have presented, there are many necessary pieces of evidence needed to be supplemented before this proposal can stand close scrutiny. Otherwise any impulsive implementation of the recommendation would unlikely to have expected results.