argument4

htpengUID: 2115584

Argument4: 392 words   30 minutes
The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site.
'Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams.'

In this argument, the arguer asserts that Adams Realty is superior to Fitch Realty in the town. In order sustain his view, the arguer compares the number of estate agents and the revenue of last year in Adams and Fitch. He points out that many of Fitch's estate agents are part-time. The arguer also takes his own experience for example. The argument seems plausible, however, in my opinion, the arguer commits several critical fallacies.

First and foremost, the number of estate agents doesn't necessarily correlate with a good service. Perhaps the estate agents in Adams are not professional enough, so they employ more agents. And also, the arguer points out that many of Fitch's estate agents are part-time but overlook to mention the situation of Adams. It is entirely possible that many of Adams' estate agents are also part-time.

Moreover, the arguer compares the revenue last year between Adams and Fitch but fails to compare them in a longer period. Maybe in the year before last, Adams' revenue is much less than Fitch's. And also, the arguer illustrates two number 168000 dollar of Adams and 144000 dollar of Fitch, but from these two numbers, one can't draw the conclusion Adams' service is much better than Fitch's for the reason that the disparity between them is not very large. The arguer fails to correlate a higher revenue and a better service. There is no evidence showing more revenue means better service, especially in the estate domain.

Last but not least, the arguer's own experience is improper to be an example because it is not objective and scientific enough. Firstly, the times arguer sold his home in the two firms are different. Perhaps ten years ago it is more difficult to sell a house than last year. Secondly, the kinds of the houses the arguer sold and the location of them is not mentioned. It is totally perhaps that the former one is worse than the later one. A third possibility is that the former one is more expensive. Without ruling out these would-be factors, the arguer's conclusion is untenable. The arguer also fails to give any information about Adams can provide a better price.

In the final analysis, the arguer's view that Adams can provide a better service than Fitch is not well-reasoned. At least 4 fallacies exist in his statement.