[argument] 新手写的argument，大家看看给点建议吧，顺便看看这种水平能个多少分啊？

argue 60

The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice for a client.

"Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold,have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last heating season that region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures, and climate forecasters predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes are being built in the region in response to recent population growth. Because of these trends, we predict an increased demand for heating oil and recommend investment in Consolidated Industries,one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions

of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these

assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions

prove unwarranted.

Outline

1  90天不一定是该地区冬季寒冷期持续最长的时间，也许平常都比90天长，这样油料的需求就不会增加；同时，通过一种预测去断言投资风险较大

2  新建的房子不一定会住人，也许因为房价，周边环境和房地产市场等因素，人们不会买这些房子；即使人们住也不一定会用油料取暖

3  不一定要投资C工厂，也许这里的小区是集体供暖，零售商C则没有市场

The speaker recommends that it is necessary to invest heating oil from Consolidated Industries. To bolster this statement he cites that the demand of heating oil will exactly increase since the weather will be cold and more new house need this kind of heating condition. However,this statement have several logical flaws which make itself unconvincing as discussed below.

In the first place,the speaker cites a prediction of the climate forecasters that the cold weather will continue for more years since last heating weather lasting 90 days and. There is no evidence that 90 days are much longer than the average cold days in this area and it is entirely possible that the cold days before last year are far more than 90 days. If this is the case,the demand of heating oil will not certainly increase but even decrease. What’s more, what forecast mean is that the possibility of whether one thing will happen or not is equal to 50 percentage. So how can we base investment which cost lots of money on an uncertainty thing. May be it is to risk to do so.

In the second place,the speaker cites that many new houses are being built in the region response to recent population growth. He implies that these new houses are built for people to live in. Since the speaker does not provide more informations about the house such as the selling price,the environment around it and the real estate market in the area, it is entirely possible that people will not live in these houses. Even if people will live in it,it is very likely for them to use other method to warm the house,for example,electric heating appliance.

Last but not the least important, the speaker recommends to invest the Consolidated Industries since it is the retail sale of home heating oil. Without more information about whether the heating system is provided by community or individual it is entirely possible that the community will offer all the heating oil for this region. If this is the case, there is no need to invest retial sale of home heating oil.Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.

To sum up, the speaker’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to be more convincing he should give more information about the weather in this area,the details about houses and the heating system of the region, and take every possible consideration into account.