The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend."Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work

The argument that Adams Reality is superior choice, compared to Fitch reality, to sell home quickly and at a good price may seem tenable at first glance. However, a close examination of the argument reveals that it is based on poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. Author's conclusion relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence and terms that lack definition. Therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, author assumes that more full time working real estate agents means superiority. In fact, the number of real estate agents might entirely irrelevant to the superior service of Adams reality. Suppose, for example, the number of real estate agents is more but they are not well qualified to convince a potential buyer. In that case, having more number of agents would not improve service outcomes. Furthermore, author provides no evidence that more revenue and average amount of home sales implies superior service. Revenue of Fitch reality might be less as compared to Adams reality because of their more expenses towards operational costs, customer service and higher salaries of employees. Author's argument needs support of the conclusion demonstrating that more number of full time real estate agents and more revenue imply superiority in service and satisfaction. Also home sales that averaged more than Fitch's reality might be because of type of homes sold by both firms. Adams reality might get clients with costly homes than Fitch reality. Clearly, this does not imply superiority of one firm over another.

Additionally, author provide no evidence that service quality of Fitch reality has not improved in last 10 years and Adams reality quality of service remains the same in last one year. Author's last transaction with Fitch reality was 10 years ago. It is possible that Fitch reality has improved their service considerably during the last ten years. Furthermore, Adams reality quality of service might have been degraded in the last one year. Without the information, it is impossible to compare the service quality of two firms. Also, author relies on only one transaction with each firm and generalized his/her experience of service quality for both firms without any substantive evidence.

The notion that Adams reality is superior to Fitch reality would be strengthened by clear definition of superiority. The argument in its current form implies that superiority means faster selling of house with good price. However, author fails to consider other factors, which might affect the decision of his/her friend, like customer support and agent fees. In fact, author provides no clear correlation between firm's superiority and number of agents along with more revenue.

Finally, author's argument needs support of evidence demonstrating the clear relationship between superiority and number of agents, revenue and average house sales. Without convincing information to these assumptions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. It could be strengthened if author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. To support the conclusion that Adams reality is, in fact, superior to Fitch reality, author must first define the scope of the superiority more clearly and submit more conclusive evidence. In order to access merits of an argument, it is essential to have full information of all the contributing factors. In this particular case, author fails to provide complete information to support his/her argument. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.