argument182【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第十一次作业 by goingeast

goingeastUID: 2439824

In the argument above, the arguer propose that Happy Pancake House not spend money on butter any more in its southeast and northeast shop. To support it, he points out that the customers either can't distinguish between butter and margarine. Furthermore to make the support convincing, he/she also proceeds that the change of margarine for butter hadn't caused any complain in the southwest shops. The argumentation seems reasonable on the surface, actually, it suffers from many weakening points.

Firstly, the arguer bases his proposal on the assumption that the shops in the southeast and northeast are equal to the one in the southwest and that the change for margarine will also work there. But the arguer fails to think over about the possible difference between them. Granted that people in the southwest don't care the change, it is also possible that the people in the southwest just like it while people in the southeast and northeast are quite different and will complain much of it, because it well accepted that people in different areas may have really different custom of eating. If unfortunately the people in the southeast and northeast are just that different from those in the southwest, obviously, the suggestion won't work even a little.

Another weakening points is that when claiming that people in the southwest don't complain of the change of margarine, the arguer cited a data of percentage, which by itself also is unconvincing. In fact the arguer build up another assumption that people who don't complain are all satisfied. But it's also not the case. For example, if one went to a restaurant and didn’t enjoy myself there, he/she will probably not show any complaint but just go and don't come back any more. In this possibility, the percentage of 2 percent people show complains will mean nothing. Possibly, the majority of people unsatisfied had also just gone away.

Furthermore, when claiming that people show little complain the arguer cited the report from the servants there, saying a number of customers who ask for butter show no complain if given margarine, which is also untenable. It likely that the servants are more likely to report the response of the customer who don't show any complaint, perhaps to show that they serve people well or to avoid making the manager think that they don't do a good job.

Last but not the least, the arguer treats part of something as if it was whole of them. In the argument, the arguer said a number of people show no complain when given margarine and proceeds as if the majority showed no complains. Obviously, the arguer makes a mistake, because part of people can't stand for the majority. Thus the conclusion is left to debate.

To conclude, the conclusion of the argumentation is untenable. Firstly, the arguer fails to make sure that people don't complain about the change. Also, the arguer didn't think over about the possible differences between the southwest and southeast or northeast. If the argumentation were to be more logical acceptable, the difference between different places must be taken into account and also the argumentation should be based on more thorough and accurate data cited to guarantee its truth.