Drinking water in the square

Source A: an original contemporary non-fiction-style account.

During a hot afternoon in town, I found a drinking-water point beside the public square. I filled my bottle without entering a shop, buying anything or explaining why I wanted to sit nearby. The small act felt unexpectedly generous, although the water point was a public service rather than a personal favour. I had grown used to treating every ordinary need as the beginning of a transaction.

The installation was plain and easy to miss. What mattered was that it worked, that the area around it was clean and that a child could reach the lower tap. I do not imagine a fountain can make a town equal. Still, it establishes one useful exception to the rule that participation requires a purchase. In a square surrounded by signs inviting us to spend, the tap offered a simpler invitation: you are here, you are thirsty, and that is sufficient.

Source B: an original letter in a nineteenth-century voice. This is a period-voice simulation, not an archival document.

Sir, the new fountain has been praised for the beauty of its stonework, but those responsible should attend to its present condition. Yesterday the drinking outlet did not run, while water continued to fall decoratively into the basin above. The monument performed its appearance of generosity and withheld its practical service.

I supported the fountain and still do. A reliable supply in the square is a benefit to workers, visitors and children. Yet its value is not secured by the inscription naming its donors. Someone must inspect the fittings, keep the approach clean and repair faults promptly. A thirsty person cannot drink a dedication. Let the committee publish who is responsible for maintenance as readily as it published the speeches at the opening. The object will deserve its praise when its ordinary function receives as much care as the ceremony by which it was presented.

Refer to the whole of both sources. Compare the writers’ perspectives on public drinking-water provision and how they convey those perspectives. Support your comparison with evidence from both sources.