argument 117

realrichardUID: 2273134

TOPIC: ARGUMENT117 - The 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."
WORDS: 309          TIME: 上午 12:29:10          DATE: 2007-3-8
In this argument, the author concludes that the Valu-Mart should increasingly store the stock of home office machines and office supplies. To justify this conclusion, the author cites there are more and more people work at home, and for the reason the company will get high profit. However, a careful scrutiny of the argument reveals multifairous logical problems, which renders it unconvincing.
First, the author provides no evidence the survey's respondents are representative of the overall of people who work at home. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that people inclined to working at home were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. Without better evidence that the study is statisitcally reliable the author cannot conclude that most people are required to take work at home.
Even if the survey are statistically reliable. The author falsely assumes that their company will get high profit from those people who work at home. It is entirely possible that people who work at home need not to buy any office machines and other office supplies. Without considering the other reasons the author cannot to draw any conclusion about they will get more profit from people who work at home.
Finally, the author assumes that with these changes will bring high profit for company. Yet the author fails to substantiate this assumption. The author do not consider the cost of changes, it is entirely possible that the company will lose more money for these changes. Withour ruling out the other reasons the author's conclusion that these changes will improve the profit of company is indefensible.
To sum up, the argument is unpersuasiving as it stands.To bloster the argument the author should provide more evidence that the survey is statistcally reliable. To evulate the arugment we must need more information about what people who work at home indeed need.