The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants."Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States.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 have compla

In order to increase proceeds strikingly the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants recommends substituting butter by margarine in all chain's restaurants in the southeast and the northeast. This conclusion is buttressed by evidence which ought to be carefully questioned in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the soundness of the argument.

The first evidence is that butter has been replaced by margarine in chain's restaurants in the southwestern states. Only two percent of clients have complained. The writer tends to assume that 98 per cent were happy with the change. At the same time, the customers may not merely demonstrate their negative attitude due to their own motivation, for instance, they did not want to create a scandal or spoil relationships with restaurant's staff. Moreover, they may feel nothing about this alteration as well. Consequently, the writer's statement seems to be unreasonable.

The second evidence which is shared with us is that visitors who asked about butter were given margarine instead but they do not complain about the substitution. It is said that these customers either are not able to discern these two products or mixed these terms up. However, this assertion is not supported properly, for instance, they may notice the difference between these products but because they like the taste of the margarine more they did not complain; moreover, there are a possibility that these clients may do not know difference between margarine and butter thus a person who asked about butter may notice the unusual flavor of the given product but did not attribute it to margarine and thus he did not complain. In other words, this arguer's statement is dubious.

Finally, the author proposes to spread this policy on all restaurants of the chain which are located in southeast and northeast states. This action should increase Happy Pancake’s profits dramatically. However, the arguer does not manage to prove that policy is profitable in the southwestern restaurants, the likeliness exists that number of customers has dropped since the change took place and thus chain's profit decrease as well. At the same time, even if we accept for granted the supposed success of the policy in the southwestern states, it is unreasonable to extrapolate this positive outcome on other states. Perhaps, people who live in the southeast and northeast may have opposite attitude to margarine. In this case, the introduction of the change may undermine chain's position and thus it may cause loses.

In conclusion, the argument asserts that substitution of butter by margarine throughout the southeast and northeast states will skyrocket chain's revenue; unfortunately, the writer does not manage to prove that the alteration is successful in the southwestern states and that usage of this experience for other parts of the USA is reasonable. As a result, the argument is weak and infirm.