In this argument, the arguer concludes that the aircraft Get-Away Airlines should pay to send the mechanics to a two-week Quality-Care Seminar on proper maintenance procedures, which will inevitably lead to improved maintenance and to greater customer satisfaction along with greate profits. To solidify the conclusion, the arguer points out that the performance in the automobile racing industry of the maintenance crews improved markedly after their crew had attended the seminar. Moreover, the arguer also cites that these maintenance crews in automobile racing industry and in Get-Away Airline perform the same functions. However, close scrutiny of the evidence would reveal that it accomplishes little toward supporting the arguer’s conclusion, as discussed below.
To begin with, it is unfair to conclude based on the false analogy that the Quality-Care Seminar efficient in the automobile racing industry will also be useful in the aircraft Get-Away Airlines. Common sense tells me that although the two kinds of the maintenance crews perform many of the same function, including refueling and repairing engines, there are more differences between the two performances. As we all know, the structure of the plane is dissimilar with that of the car, which may causes the maintenances of the two differentiate. Therefore, even if the two-week Quality-Care Seminar improved the performance of the maintenance in the automobile racing industry, there is no guarantee that it will work in the aircraft Get-Away Airlines.
Next, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence that the two-week Quality-Care Seminar is responsible the improvement of the performance of maintenance crews in the automobile racing industry. It entirely possible that there are other factors caused the improvement of the performance. For instance, perhaps the efficient management makes the crews feel more stressful to complete the work with the improvement of the performance. The arguer also ignores the possibility that many of these maintenance crews had been taking another study which leads to their improvement of performance. Without ruling out these scenarios, the arguer cannot rely on the incredible assumption that the two-week Quality-Care Seminar is the reason for improving the
performance of maintenance crews in the automobile racing industry.
Finally, the arguer commits the fallacy of hasty generalization by assuming that the improved maintenance will lead to the result of greater customer satisfaction and more profits for our airline. However the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Other possible factors will also affect the result. For instance, the price of the airline’s ticket and the services of the company could influence the customer satisfaction and profits for our airline too. Thus, the arguer’s convention on the result is simply unjustified.
To sum up, the conclusion relies on the scant evidence that render it unconvincing as it stand. To bolster the recommendation, the arguer must provide more specific evidence concerning that performances of the maintenance crews in the two professions are generally similar. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would need to know whether the two-week Quality-Care Seminar is the real reason for the improvement of the maintenance crews. I would also need to know the conditions of other factors that have effect on the customer satisfaction and profits.