又是一篇argument 求拍！关于butter的

chasedreamer08

In the argument above, the arguer advocates that substitutebutter with margarine in the northeast just like in the southeast to saveexpenditure and make more profits. In support of the conclusion, the arguerclaims that only about 2 percent of customers have complained, which impliesthat the rest of the customers are content with the change. The evidence citedis that those customers who wanted butter did not show dissatisfaction whengiven margarine, based on which the arguer suggests that these customers areeither cannot tell the difference between butter and margarine or refermargarine when they say “butter”. At first glance, the rationales seemplausible, yet a further examination disposes the argument toward invalidity.

One of the most fundamental problems relies on theassumption that those 98 percent of customers who did not complain are happywith the change. Hence the question he/she needs answer is whether the othercustomers did not care about the change or they disliked margarine but did notcomplain. It is entirely possible that the procedure of making complaints inthis restaurant is troublesome; as a result, albeit the customers wereunsatisfactory about the change, they just chose to never come back instead ofmaking complaints.  

Granted that those 98 percent of customers were content withmargarine, it does not necessarily lead to save more and make more profits. Tosubstantiate his/her recommendation, the arguer had better clarify the pricesof butter and margarine respectively as well as their costs. Perhaps theproduction of milk this year increases greatly, so the cost of it is really lowcompared to margarine’s. Or maybe the profits of butter are higher thanmargarine’s even though the cost of butter is higher.  Without ruling out these possibilities, thearguer cannot convince me that the replacement will cause more profits.

Moreover, the arguer could bolster his conclusion byanswering whether the restaurants in the northeastern are making profits.Without any concrete evidence about the restaurants’ situation in thenortheastern, it will raise skeptics about if this policy succeeded innortheastern area.  erhaps thoserestaurants are losing customers because of the change of butter, and itfollows that this policy cannot be incorporated throughout the southeast. Eventhough the restaurants are making more profits in the northeast, the author hadbetter answer the question that whether this success in the northeast wouldapply equally to the southeastern restaurants. Due to the different habits ofdining, the southeasterners might prefer butter while the northeasterners donot. Without accounting for possibilities like that, the arguer cannotarbitrarily state that a change of butter will help the restaurants in thesoutheast make more profits.

Therefore, before Happy pancake House makes a change ofbutter, I suggest them to make clear of the real reaction and thoughts ofcustomers when they are provided with margarine; for example, conduct a surveyabout this potential change. In addition, Happy Pancake House should comparethese two areas carefully when they are considering adopting the same policy inthe southeast.