154) The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client. Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienced twenty days with below-average temperatures, and local weather forecasters throughout the region predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes have been built in this region during the past year. Based on these developments, we predict a large increase in the demand for heating oil. Therefore, we recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil.
In this argument the author recommends theclient to invest in Consolidated Industries due to the future increase demandfor heating oil. To justify the argument, the author points out that last yearthe northeastern region of United States had twenty days below averagetemperatures and the pattern is going to continue for more years. He also citesthat more houses have been built in that region. The argument is well-presentedbut not well-reasoned in the following respects.
To begin with, the author assumes thatthere is a direct relationship between the weather condition last year and thedemand in heating oil. Yet he fails to provide evidence to explain it. It isentirely possible that the so called "below-average temperatures"were not absolutely low at all because this region has a very high temperaturein summer, so that people living there do not need extra heat. Even if thetemperatures were very low, probably they still do not need extra heat becausethat kind of weather just lasted for twenty days, and the similar patternpredicted by the forecasters might not be reliable since it is impossible topredict weather condition a year in advance. In this case, to invest to the newheat system may be a waste of money, thus the citizens will not need theheating oil at all.
What is more, the author unfairly assumesthat the new houses built in this region last year will be potential customersof the heat oil, while no information has been provided to prove it. Perhaps,the new houses have already had heating systems installed last year, with whichthe heating oil cannot be used. Perhaps those houses were built as recreationplaces which will be in use only in summer and they do not need heat at all.Even if the houses are in need of heat oil in winter, the argument may be stillunwarranted without giving the exact number of the new houses. If there wereonly a few new houses built, they will not increase the demand for heating oila lot.
In addition, even if the author has provedthat there will be an increase demand for heating oil, it is still notpersuasive without substantiating that Consolidated Industries is the bestchoice. If Consolidated Industries locates in the northwestern region of thecountry, it will cost too much to transport the product the northeast. Even ifConsolidated Industries locates in the right place, there is no informationshowing that Consolidated Industries is better with retail sale of home heatingoil than other companies. Without giving the exact advantages of choosingConsolidated Industries, the argument remains unconvincing.
In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as itstands. To strengthen it, the author would have to give more information aboutthe increasing market in heating oil, and that the new houses built last yearwill for sure turn to be potential buyers of the product. To better evaluatethe argument, we would also need evidence that Consolidated Industries is thebest choice.作者: ppguo 时间: 2011-10-31 11:34
今天太困了，明早再来拍吧。