Argument150求拍

elephantograph

Argument150
29:59
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 90 days with below- average temperatures, and climate forecasters at Waymash University predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes have been built in this region during the past years. Because these developments will certainly result in an increased demand for heating oil, we recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations in the retail sale of home heating oil."



In this article, the author predicts that last year the northeastern United States had experienced 90 days with below-average temperatures, and this trend will go on for several years. Meanwhile, many new home have been built in this area, thus, the demanding of oil which is traditionally used in this area as main fuel will skyrocket. In the end, he concludes that the client should invest in Consolidated Industries. Granted that it seems to be somewhat appealing, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.In this argument the author recommends investmentin Consolidated Industries (IE), one of whose major business operation is theretail sale of home heating oil. To justify this recommendation the authorpoints out that homes in the northeastern U.S. have traditionally used oil astheir major fuel for heating and that last year that region experienced 90 dayswith below-average temperatures while climate forecasters at Watmarsh Universitypredict the continuation for several more years of this pattern. The authorfurther notes that many new homes were built there during the past year. Thisargument suffers from several critical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive.

To begin with, the author’s recommendation restson several unproven assumptions. First, the author assumes that thetraditionally used oil is still the major fuel for heating. Is it possible thatthis region have been counting on electricity for heating for a long time? Iftrue, the author’s recommendation will be meaningless. Similarly, the authormust indicate the general winter duration here, without which we cannotdetermine whether the 90-day duration is significant enough.

Next, even if oil is still regional major fuelfor heating, is the prediction made by climate forecasters at Waymarsh Universityreliable? Yet the author provides no assurance that this is the case. It isentirely possible that the climate prediction is not one of the strengths atWaymarsh University and their prediction is not accountable at all. Besides,common sense informs us that weather and climate are extremely hard to predictprecisely. Lacking evidence that this pattern will last instead of stop, the author’srecommendation based upon it is highly suspect.

In addition, the author unfairly assumes thatmore homes built in this region will necessarily leads to increase in oildemand. The author must answer questions such as whether the population hadincreased as a result while it is possible that people who live here will moveto southern regions to avoid the cold winters here. If the answer is negative,the oil demand is unlikely to increase, rendering the author’s recommendationindefensible.

Finally, even assuming that the author can proveall the foregoing assumptions, it is unwarranted to infer from the mere factthat regional oil demand will increase that investment in CI will beprofitable. Does CI sell oil in the northeastern at all? If the answer isnegative, the recommendation is meaningless in the first place. Besides, evenif the answer is positive, common sense informs us that profitability is afunction of both revenue and cost. In order to evaluate the profitability of CIwe need to find the answers to question like is other parts of CI in goodcondition as well? Is CI a healthy company? It is entirely possible that CI isin poor management, have employed ill-conceived marketing and pricingstrategies and its distribution is very inefficient. Without ruling out andweigh against these possibilities, the author cannot convince me that CI is acompany worth investing.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as itstands. To strengthen it the author must provide clear evidence that oil isstill the major fuel for heating and that the demand there will definitelyincrease. The author must also provide more information about the climateforecaster and the situation of CI.

elephantograph

谢谢指正
不过原文是 "have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating" 这个traditionally应该作时间理解还是做“风格比较传统”理解?另外求指点更好的的攻击思路