argument新手，第一次写的开头，求拍啊，各位大大帮忙看下

lebronboUID: 2655129

The following is a memorandum from the director of personnel to the president of Get-Away Airlines.
"Since our mechanics are responsible for inspecting and maintaining our aircraft, Get-Away Airlines should pay to send them to the Quality-Care Seminar, a two-week seminar on proper maintenance procedures. I recommend this seminar because it is likely to be a wise investment, given that the automobile racing industry recently reported that the performance of its maintenance crews improved markedly after their crews had attended the seminar. These maintenance crews perform many of the same functions as do our mechanics, including refueling and repairing engines. The money we spend on sending our staff to the seminar will inevitably lead to improved maintenance and thus to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for our airline."





In this memorandum, the arguer claims that the mechanics of Get-Away Airlines should be sent to the Quality-Care Seminar to improve their maintenance, which lead to greater customer satisfaction along with the greater profits. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer provides the fact that the performance of the maintenance crews of racing industry improved markedly after they had attended the seminar. A major assumption underlying the argument is that the arguer believes the maintenance of automobile racing industry and the mechanics of Get-Away Airlines performance of the same functions. Close scrutiny of the reasoning,  however, reveals that this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.