First, by citing Steel City’s population increase in order to argue for a step-up in home
construction, the speaker relies on certain unsubstantiated demographic assumptions. One
such assumption is that area demand for new housing will support additional home
construction in the foreseeable future. Yet lacking finn evidence that this will be the case,it is
entirely possible that the area’s population will stabilize, or even decrease, and that the firm will
have trouble selling its new homes at profitable levels. Another unfair demographic assumption
is that Steel City residents will be interested in purchasing more expensive single-family
homes. Perhaps the population increase has been and will continue to be the result of an influx
of retired people who regardless of their income level are interested in smaller, less expensive
homes and condominiums, or even rental housing.
Secondly, by citing Steel City’s fast-rising family-income levels to support the
recommendation, the speaker relies on other tenuous assumptions. One such assumption is
that area residents interested in buying new homes can afford homes priced over $150,000. It
is entirely possible that in Steel City family-income levels are rising rapidly primarily among
current homeowners who would not be in the market for new homes in the foreseeable future,
or among only a handful of the area’s wealthiest residents. It is also possible that despite the
rapid increase the average family income in Steel City is still low compared to national
averages--too low to justify the president’s recommendation to shift focus to more expensive
homes.
Thirdly, even if this firm builds and can sell expensive homes according to the president’s
proposal, the firm’s profits would not necessarily increase as a result. Hiring additional workers
161
adds to the expense of building a home, and of course the cost of materials will no doubt
increase with the value of the homes that are built. Furthermore, in all likelihood the firm would
not be able to build a greater number of expensive homes than cheaper homes. Moreover,
given the scant evidence that area residents could actually afford expensive homes, it is
entirely possible that the firm would have trouble selling these homes quickly and at profitable
price levels. In short, without a detailed cost-benefit analysis the president cannot convince me
that the proposed course of action would increase this firm’s profits.
In conclusion, the president’s argument is unpersuasive. To strengthen it the president must
convince me that in the foreseeable future Steel City residents will actually demand and be
able to afford houses costing more than $150,000. To better evaluate the argument I would
need more information about Steel City’s demographic trends and about the income of area
residents interested in buying new homes in the foreseeable future. I would also need a
detailed analysis comparing the costs and revenues associated with the proposed course of
action with the costs and revenues associated with the construction and sale of the firm’s less
expensive homes.
Argument 21A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has
increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city
restaurants that specialize in seafood. Moreover, the majority of families in Bay City are
two-income families, and a nationwide study has shown that such families eat significantly
fewer home-cooked meals than they did a decade ago but at the same time express more
concern about eating healthily. Therefore, a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood
will be quite popular and profitable.
This argument’s conclusion is that a new Bay City restaurant specializing in seafood would
be both popular and profitable. To justify this conclusion the argument points out that seafood
consumption in Bay City’s restaurants has risen by 30% during the last five years. Also, the
argument points out that most Bay City families are two-income families, and cites a national
survey showing that two-income families eat out more often and express more concern about
eating healthily than they did ten years ago. I find the argument unpersuasive, for several
reasons.
First, a 30% increase in seafood consumption at Bay City restaurants does not necessarily
indicate a sufficient demand for a new Bay City restaurant serving seafood dishes only.
Although a 30% increase seems significant, the actual level of consumption might
nevertheless be very low. This scenario is quite possible, especially considering that there are
currently no seafood restaurants in Bay City. Lacking evidence that a significant number of the
city’s restaurant patrons are ordering seafood, the argument’s conclusion that a new seafood
restaurant would be popular and profitable is unjustified.
Secondly, even if current demand would otherwise support an increase in the availability of
seafood at Bay City’s restaurants, the argument unfairly assumes that Bay City’s restaurant
patrons who order seafood would frequent the new restaurant. Perhaps the vast majority of
these patrons would remain loyal to their favorite restaurant. Thus lacking evidence that these
patrons would be willing to try the new restaurant the argument’s claim that a new seafood162
restaurant would be popular is dubious.
Thirdly, the nationwide study showing clear trends among two-income families toward dining
out and eating healthily does not necessarily apply to Bay City. It is quite possible that Bay
City’s two-income families do not follow these general trends. For that matter, in Bay City the
trend might be just the opposite. Thus the nationwide trends that the argument cites amount to
scant evidence that Bay City residents in particular would frequent a new seafood restaurant in
their city.
Fourth, even if most of Bay City’s families are following the nationwide trends indicated
above, it is unreasonable to infer that these famih’es will necessarily patronize a new seafood
restaurant in Bay City. For all we know Bay City might boast a variety of health-oriented
restaurants that do not specialize in seafood. For that matter, perhaps Bay City’s existing
restaurants are responding to the trends by providing more healthful dishes. Moreover,
perhaps either or both of these trends will soon reverse themselves--at least in Bay City--for
whatever reason. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the
argument’s conclusion that a new seafood restaurant in Bay City would be popular and
profitable.
Finally, even if Bay City families flock to the new seafood restaurant, the restaurant would
not necessarily be profitable as a result. Profitability is a function of both revenue and expense.
Thus it is entirely possible that the restaurant’s costs of obtaining high-quality, healthful
seafood, or of promoting the new restaurant, might render it unprofitable despite its popularity.
Without weighing revenue against expenses the argument’s conclusion is premature at best.
In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the argument’s author must
show--perhaps by way of a reliable citywide study--that the demand among restaurant patrons
for seafood is sufficient to support a new seafood restaurant, and that a sufficient number of
people who order fish at Bay City restaurants will be able and willing to at least try the new
restaurant. The author would also bolster the argument by providing reliable evidence that Bay
City reflects the nationwide trends cited, and that these trends will continue in the foreseeable
future in Bay City. Finally, to better assess the argument I would need detailed cost and
revenue estimates for a new Bay City seafood restaurant--to determine the likelihood that
even a popular such restaurant would turn a profit.
Argument 22
The following appeared in a memo from the president of Viva-Tech, a manufacturer of
high-tech medical equipment.