argument4 【kito组智恩】

智恩UID：2160717

4.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."

这次没写提纲，本来想限时，还是失败了，写了40分钟，谢谢拍砖
【正文】
In this argument, the author concludes that if you want to sell your home quickly and a good price, you should use Adams. To support this recommendation, the author quoted a number of evidence. However this argument is deficient in logic and not cogent.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that more estate agents in a estate firm represents more effective in dealing with business. Although Fitch has less estate agents than Adams, it is entirely possible that the capability of Fitch's estate agents is high than Adams's. Moreover no evidence is provided to substantiate the part-time job works less effectively than full-time job. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities, the author's recommendation is untenable as it stands.

In addition, the author quoted the average home sales of the Adams and Fitch to illustrate the superiority of Adams. However the author fails to take account of other factors which might influence the average home price. For example, the house of Adams locates in downtown such as New York which the local economy develops faster than the other areas. On the other hand, the house of Fitch mainly builds in some poor areas. If this is the case, it is natural that the average house price of Adams is higher than the Fitch's. Therefore the average house sale could not demonstrate the superiority of Adams as a piece of evidence.

Furthermore, the author's own selling house experience contributes little to the author's recommendation. For one thing, the author sold one of his or her house ten years ago. Perhaps, the house-selling situation was depressed ten years ago. Also the government might carry out politics that was beneficial for the house selling last year. As a result, the house was sold out quicker than ten years ago. For another thing, even if the circumstance of house-selling is similar, the author commits a fallacy that the ability of selling house ten year ago could compete with the current capability of last year of two different corporations. It is highly possible that the Fitch has trained its estate agents to be good at selling house. Absent of taking account of these possibilities, it is indefensible to reach the author's conclusion.

To sum up, this argument is logically flawed and therefore is unconvincing. To strengthen it, the author must provide evidence that the capability of Adams's estate agents is more superior to the Fitch's and that the location of these two firms' house is similar in economic condition. To make it better credible, we need to know the selling house ability in Adams is indeed more advantageous than in Fitch.