Argument 4
The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site.
"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town―Adams Realty and Fitch Realty―
Adams is clearly superior.
Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover,
Adams‘ revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch’s $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with
Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use
Adams."
My response:
In this argument, the arguer advocates that Adams Realty is “clearly superior” than Fitch Realty. The arguer offers various statistics and even his/her own personal experience to support this claim. However, the argument remains unconvincing and shows flaws in many aspects.
To support his/her argument, the arguer first tells us that
Adams has more agents than Fitch; not only this, but many of Fitch’s employed agents are only part-time. But the arguer fails to show how this is relevant with the performance and quality of the company. Does bigger mean better? How about the standard of performance by the employees? To what extent does having part-time workers affect Fitch Realty, and what are those effects, for better or worse? These questions are easily raised, yet the arguer offers no answer.
The arguer further employs revenue statistics to his/her cause. Again we only see figures. At a first glance these figures seemingly proves that indeed
Adams is the better choice; but under closer examination it does not stand firm. We do not know from the figures given, if Adams’ revenue has always been this high; we do not know if Adams is simply just a bigger corporation with more sources of revenue and other areas of investment; and we do not know how these numbers stand with their counter-parts of previous years. Fitch could be a company on the rise―suppose their revenue of the year before last was only a quarter of Adams, then the figures given would only show that Fitch has been developing rapidly, instead of demonstrating Adams is better. The same problem lies with the numbers regarding home sales. We are not given the context and backgrounds of those companies, and those numbers are thus unhelpful in our comparison of the two.
Then the arguer goes on to make a hasty conclusion that
Adams sell faster. But comparing a sell by Fitch last year with a sell by
Adams this year is unconvincing. The arguer does not tell us if the overall economy was worse last year and thus all sells were slower than this year; we do not know the locations and values of the houses in question―e.g. a house in a better neighborhood will sell faster, and generally houses less expensive are more popular and easier to sell. Therefore again this evidence is seriously flawed.
In conclusion, though the arguer may have justification in his/her claim, unfortunately we cannot come to the same conclusion based on the evidence produced. Were the arguer to provide more statistics, and more importantly, analysis of those statistics, the argument might stand on better ground. As it is, it is seriously flawed and cannot be of any use.
mm’s response:
In the argument, the speaker suggests house owners to use
Adams as opposed to Fitch for speedier sale and a better price. To substantiate the claim, he/she cites the number of agents and yearly revenues of each corporation to show the seemingly superior position Adams is at in gaining profits; besides, personal experience in selling two houses with each film respectively is also included to demonstrate that homes listed with Adams sell more quickly. Upon first look the suggestion may seem reasonable; however, a closer examination reveals many fundamental flaws within the reasoning.
Firstly, the surface statistics presented in the argument as to the situation of the two firms aren’t telling enough to show that Adam outmaneuvers Fitch in selling houses at better prices, which makes the speaker’s suggestion unconvincing. Mere numbers of agents isn’t the decisive factor of a film’s success; accordingly, larger number of agent, which then can account for the consequent higher total revenues, does not ensure that Adam is doing better than Fitch. What’s more, average revenue isn’t necessarily linked to individual house sale; Fitch may actually be selling houses at a higher price than
Adams but gain lower total revenue due to disadvantages in number. Under that scenario, to suggest that Adam can always sell houses at a better price would be gratuitous.
Secondly, despite the personal experience the speaker offered, the assumption made from this inadequate evidence that
Adams sell houses faster is still open to doubt. Common sense informs me that there are many other factors responsible for the sale of a specific house, such as the condition of the house at hand including ambiance, location and so on, and the situation of the market. In fact, these factors may carry more weight than the company listed with in deciding the speed a house is sold out. In the absence of all these information, and considering that one year is relatively long time for fluctuations of need and supply in the real estate market to occur, the speaker’s hasty conclusion is specious at best.
ass="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">
Another point lacking credence lies in the unwarranted assumption that
Adams’s better performance (though still unproved) will necessarily guarantee its superiority in selling each house. However, even if it is true that Adam is doing generally better than Fitch in terms of speed and price, many other factors have to be taken account in choosing selling agent for a specific house—regional differences (perhaps Fitch enjoys more popularity in a particular area), conditions of the house( maybe Adam is more efficient in selling large mansions while Fitch excels in selling small houses), just to name few.
In sum, the speaker fails to provide sound ground for his prescription. To be more convincing, the speaker should provide concrete evidence to show that
Adams sell housed more quickly and at better prices. Even so, specific conditions of the house to sold have to be taken into consideration before any wise choice between the two films can be made.