ARGUMENT(51)The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants.“Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers

Merely based on unfounded supposition and dubious evidence, the argument draws a conclusion that the Happy Pancake House should extend the use of margarine to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well, due to consumers’ attitudes found in the southwestern. At first glance, the statement appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed, thus, not cogent enough.

To start with, the author of the argument assumes too hastily that about 2 percent of customers complaining results in that 98 out of 100 other customers are satisfied with the substitution of butter. While consumers in the southwestern may have not taken this change into their consideration really as the arguer predicts, a concrete connection between the complaint rate and consumers’ actual happiness with the measure is not made effectively. Perhaps, for example, customers who did not approve this margarine’s use could have been so annoyed that they would not like to go there next time, of course there would be no chance for them to leave manager a message about his/her complaints.

In addition, the arguer claims that no complaints were accepted by the servers in the restaurants, which indicates that consumers there feel all right about the change. Yet this statement is unwarranted because no other conditions are shown in this evidence, to clarify, the author assumes without justification of a myriad of possible factors, ranging from the servers’ service at that time to whether the customers found out the difference of butter when the servers were standing by. If when the customers found the discrepancy between the butter and margarine and wanted to tell the waiters, servers were just busy engaging in other jobs in the restaurant, the customers may choose to forget it and continue their meals, but it did not mean that they were happy to notice the change.

Finally, this inclusion relies on a shaky presumption that the customers cannot distinguish butter from margarine or do not have a clear conception about the term butter. However, there is absolutely no proof provided that customers who had margarine there were not intelligent enough to differentiate the two products or tell them apart. Maybe they were considerable enough to compromise, or they thought the flavor of those two stuff were both suitable for the meals. Any of the scenarios above, if true, would ultimately serve to undermine the claim that the costumers did not capable enough to tell the difference.

To sum up, the author of the statement fails to substantiate his/her argument that it will be a wise choice to extend the margarine use to other restaurants in order to save money. Without additional evidence, however, we should be wary about accepting the truth of the statement’s conclusion.