The author is presenting a false dilemma by imposing an either-or choice between two courses of action that need not be mutually exclusive.
Comprehensive analysis is necessary to identify the actual cause(s) ofthe company’s lowered profitability.
Therefore, any decision aimed at addressing the problem of falling circulation must be based on more thorough investigation to gather sufficient data in order to narrow down and locate the actual causes(s) of the problem.
From the survey quoted in the argument, however, we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling, and have good reason to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general attitudes of all workers as a whole.
When samples are used to make general claims about a particular group, the samples should be close enough in time to the generalization they are used to support, so that historical changes will not invalidate the generalization.
The problem is that the two situations are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction.
The argument rests on the gratuitous/unreasonable assumption thatApia’s work and quality are more superior to Macadam.
