117The following is a memo from the business manager of Valu-Mart stores.
"Over 70 percent of the respondents to a recent survey reported that they are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past. Since Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply departments in the past, we should take advantage of this work-at-home trend by increasing at all Valu-Mart stores the stock of home office machines such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines. We will also increase stock of office supplies such as paper, pens, and staplers. With these changes, our office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of our stores."
The argument above is not sufficiently supported by the evidence. Arriving at the conclusion that office-supply departments will become the most profitable department is not valid based on the information above. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a survey that 70 percent of the respondents want to take more work at home. Moreover, the arguer points out that their departments will become the most profitable departments by increasing stock of office supplies. As it stands, the argument suffers from several flaws.
The opinion lacks representatives of overall attitudes based on which can make any judgment about the conclusion. In evaluating the survey, one must consider how the survey was conducted. If the questions were leading, the results might be unreliable. One must consider how broader the survey was. If the survey was limited to a few people who want to work at home, the results might be attributable to particular people. Therefore, the opinion might not apply to most people. In addition, even if the survey was broader, one must consider if it was limited in certain ways. Who conducted the survey? Who responded? How the pool was conducted? Factors such as these could undermine the result of survey.
Even if one accepts the survey, the argument remains questionable. The arguer assumes that their departments will become the most profitable departments by increasing stock of office supplies. But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that most people do not need office machines.
In addition, the arguer ignores other factors that might undermine the argument. It is possible that more and more stores sell office machines. It might be the case that the profit of office machines becomes less and less. Therefore, the office-supply departments can not become the most profitable department.
To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument is invalid since the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information about survey. To better evaluate the argument, we need more evidence that office-supply department will be profitable. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.