In conclusion, the letter’s author fails to adequately support the recommendation that Cedar
replace Good-Taste with Discount. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide clear
evidence that Cedar employees are dissatisfied with Good-Taste’s food, and that they would
be more satisfied with Discount’s food. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more
information comparing the two companies’ menus to determine which is more varied and
caters to those with special dietary needs.
Argument 68
The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme
Publishing Company.
"Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read
Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One graduate of the course was
able to read a five-hundred-page report in only two hours; another graduate rose from an
assistant manager to vice president of the company in under a year. Obviously, the faster you
can read, the more information you can absorb in a single workday. Moreover, Easy Read
costs only $500 per employee---a small price to pay when you consider the benefits to Acme.
Included in this fee is a three-week seminar in Spruce City and a lifelong subscription to the
Easy Read newsletter. Clearly, Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of our employees to
take the Easy Read course."
In this argument, the personnel director of Acme Publishing claims that Acme would benefit
greatly from improved employee productivity if every employee takes the 3-week Easy-Read
seminar at a cost of $500 per employee. To support this daim the director points out that many
other companies have daimed to benefit from the seminar, that one student was able to read a
long report very quickly afterwards, and that another student saw his career advance
significantly during the year after the seminar. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals
that it accomplishes little toward supporting the director’s claim, as discussed below.
First of all, the mere fact that many other companies benefited greatly from the course does
not necessarily mean that Acme will benefit similarly from it. Perhaps the type of reading on
which the course focuses is not the type in which Acme Publishing employees often engage at
work. Moreover, since Acme is a publishing company its employees are likely to be excellent
readers already, and therefore might stand to gain far less from the course than employees of
other types of companies.
Secondly, the two individual success stories the argument cites amount to scant evidence at
best of the course’s effectiveness. Moreover, the director unfairly assumes that their
accomplishments can be attributed to the course. Perhaps both individuals were outstanding
readers before taking the course, and gained nothing from it. Regarding the individual whose
career advanced after taking the course, any one of a myriad of other factors might explain
that advancement. And the individual who was able to read a long report very quickly after the
course did not necessarily absorb a great deal of the material.
216
Thirdly, the director assumes without warrant that the benefits of the course will outweigh its
costs. While all of Acme’s employees take the 3-week course, Acme’s productivity might
decline significantly. This decline, along with the substantial fee for the course, might very well
outweigh the course’s benefits. Without a complete cost-benefit analysis, it is unfair to
conclude that Acme would benefit greatly should all its employees take the course.In sum, the director’s evidence does not warrant his conclusion. To support his
recommendation he must first provide evidence that employees with similar reading skills as
those that Acme employees possess have benefited significantly from the course, a survey of
other publishing companies might be useful for this purpose. To better assess the argument I
would need more information about the extent to which the course would disrupt Acme’s
operations. Specific information that would be useful would include the proximity of the
seminar to Acme, the hours involved, and the percentage of Acme em ployees enrolled
simultaneously.
Argument 69
From a letter to the editor of a city newspaper.
"One recent research study has indicated that many adolescents need more sleep than they
are getting, and another study has shown that many high school students in our city are
actually dissatisfied with their own academic performance. As a way of combating these
problems, the high schools in our city should begin classes at 8:30 A.M. instead of 7:30 A.M.,
and end the school day an hour later. This arrangement will give students an extra hour of
sleep in the morning, thereby making them more alert and more productive. Consequently, the
students will perform better on tests and other assignments, and their academic skills will
improve significantly."
This letter concludes that the academic performance of local high school students would
improve if the daily school schedule were to begin and end one hour later. To support this
recommendation the letter’s author cites two studies, one showing that adolescents generally
do not get enough sleep, the other showing that many local high school stu dents are
dissatisfied with their academic performance. The recommendation relies on a series of
unsubstantiated assumptions about the habits of high school students and about the studies
themselves. As a result, the letter is not convincing.
First of all, the letter’s recommendation depends on the doubtful assumption that by
beginning classes one hour later students will sleep one hour longer each night. Experience
tells us, however, that this will not necessarily be the case. Just as likely, students will adjust to
the new schedule by falling asleep one hour later. Moreover, by staying up one hour later at
night students might very well engage in the sort of late-night social or even delinquent
activities that would disrupt their productivity at school.Secondly, the letter’s conclusion relies on the assumption that one additional hour of sleep
would in fact result in improved academic performance. While this might be the case, the letter
provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. It is entirely possible that one hour of
additional sleep would not suffice. Moreover, the letter provides no evidence that the students
who are dissatisfied with their academic performance are also the ones who would benefit
217
from the new schedule. It is entirely possible that these particular students already sleep
longer than most other students, or that their academic performance is already optimal.
Conversely, it is entirely possible that those students whose academic performance could
stand the greatest improvement would be unmotivated to become better students regardless
of how much they sleep each night.
A final problem with the argument involves the two studies themselves. The letter pro vides
no information about how either study was conducted. Without knowing whether the sample of
adolescents studied was representative of the overall high school population in the city, it is
impossible to confidently apply the studies’ results to that population. Moreover, we are not
informed about the size of the sample in either study; the smaller the sample, the less reliable
the study’s conclusion.
In conclusion, this letter’s recommendation for beginning and ending the high school day
one hour later is not well justified. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide clear
evidence that adjusting the schedule will in fact result in the students’ sleeping longer each
night, and that this additional sleep will in fact improve their academic performance. To better
assess the author’s recommendation, we would need more information about the sampling
method used in the two studies.
Argument 70
Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout
the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have complained,
indicating that 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers
have reported that a number of customers who still ask for butter do not complain when they
are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers cannot distinguish margarine
from butter, or they use the term "butter" to refer to either butter or margarine. Thus, to avoid
the expense of purchasing butter, the Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving
change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well.