写了本月双沟里的一篇argument，还请大家帮忙提高，大谢！

The
following appeared in an Avia Airlines departmental memorandum.

“On average, 9 out of every 1,000 passengers who traveled on Avia Airlines last
year filed a complaint about our baggage-handling procedures. This means that
although some 1 percent of our passengers were unhappy with those procedures,
the overwhelming majority were quite satisfied with them; thus it would appear
that a review of the procedures is not important to our goal of maintaining or
increasing the number of Avia’s passengers.”

The
author cites that there were only 9 out of every 1,000 passengers who traveled
via Avia Airlines filed complaints about the baggage handling procedures. Based
on this evidence, the author concludes that the majority of the passengers are
satisfied with the procedures; hence it is not important to review the
procedures for maintaining or increasing the number of passengers. This
argument seems appealing but it will fail to withstand after scrutiny.

First
of all, the evidence the author uses is too insufficient to support the
conclusion drew. A one year survey can merely show that the majority of the
passengers amongst those who took the survey were satisfied on the procedures. A
concrete investigation should include a massive database to be analyzed, in other
words, the one year poll cannot represent in an extended time period the
passengers’ attitude towards the baggage-handling procedures. There might be
fluctuation in the passengers’ attitudes among the several previous years, and
the author fails to provide the data. Furthermore, the author fails to provide
the number of passengers surveyed. There are hundreds of thousands of
passengers who take the Avia Airlines, and a small pool of correspondents can
almost prove nothing about all the passengers’ satisfaction on the procedures. The
author must conduct a more thorough investigation on the passengers’ views
before he reaches the conclusion that the passengers are contented.

Secondly,
the survey is presented in a vague manner. The author fails to provide a detailed
background of the survey while the details can largely determine whether the
survey is a solid one or not. In this case, the passengers’ attitude toward the
services can rely on various aspects, such as the legitimacy of the procedures
designed, the time consumed for carrying their loads, and the convenience of
the procedure compared to the airline’s rivals, and so forth. If the arguer can
provide a full context of the survey, the argument would be more convincing.

Furthermore,
there is a fallacious reasoning in the argument. The writer argues that because
the passengers who took part in the survey were generally satisfied on the
baggage-handling procedures, a review of the procedures is not important. As a
matter of fact, the improvement in the fast changing business dynamic is
essential to the continuous success. A seemingly happy survey cannot replace a
review on the procedures. Annual review on the services the airline can provide
is not only necessary but also critical to the maintenance and growth of the
business itself. The satisfaction of the services can only prove that the
airline performed well in the previous years, but cannot assure the quality in
the future. The review can be facilitated to not only check the former status
of the services but also monitor services in the following years.