Admission Tests GRE Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The given letter is from the owner of the Sunny side apartment complex to the manager of the buildings and it is regarding the replacement of the showerheads in the buildings and the statement is made making an assumption that in the future there would be more profit if they make the same changes to more profits.

The owner has stated bis perspective by taking into account a generalized view point and also given the lack of evidentiary values creates a dearth and paucity in the statements made by the owner. The weakness in the statement is purely created due to the general assumption of the owner and not based on the data or substantial evidence of the observation made in the changes in the building.

The Drawbacks have been mentioned by the owner but they have not been considered seriously as negative possibilities that might cause them future expenses. The other important aspect is the lack of the consideration given to the various factors. The owners statement are primarily focused on the profits and they negate all other aspects such as the water pressure and the exact data which he clearly states is unavailable till now.

[Without considering the exact usage of the water based on the number of people who

are using, the exact number of shower heads, the total amount of water consumed.

the average supply of water in the building, the totla profit that they might make, the

overheads cost and the cost of installation of the new shower heads all need to

stipulated and then considered on a serious note before they proceed with the

changes.

The owner needs to conduct a proer study of the data rather than making a hyperbolic

assumption that they would meet profits, given that there is not guarantee for the

same.

It is essential for the statement to also consider the extent of profit that they could

make (brought the proposed change.

To conclude, it is essential for the statement postulated in the letter to consider more

comprehensive aspects before arriving at the conclusion that would only undermine

and weaken the perspective of the given letter.

The given letter describes in detail the recommendation of the owner of a skate shop in the central plaza.The letter mentions that the city council had prohibited and imposed restrcitions on the usage of skateboard in the central plaza.though the argument in the letter deems to be possible, there are various illsutration and dearth of facts that makes the arguement placed in the letter to be weak and it is also subject lo be undermined.

Firstly, the number of other factors have not been considered or taken into account. there must be simple and logical solution stated for the menace stated by the authorities. The owner has not stated or even refuted the argument of the council which makes the argument to be flawed. The other fcators have to be questioned and the reasons on how to stop them in future need to be introspected.

Secondly, comparative statement about the other park has been stated in an ambiguous manner and the owner has failed to mention clear and concrete illustrations, paradigm question needs to be. if both the parks are of the same kind and the same nature. They should also be in a position to answer the question pertaning to the prohibitive mechanism and also the differences between the parks. I would also like to question if both the plazas follow the same protocol and litter control norms.

Thirdly, failed to mention on how the the factor of lilting the band and restriction would be advantageous for the general public and the city council. This argument is also not supported . There might be several other reasons except the prohibition that causes only a small increase in the number of clientele. For instance, the local population.;! better plaza nearby.