argument essay

The argument claims that there is a design flaw in the housing of the electric motor of the Beat-Well kitchen mixer and because of this, the motor is running excessively hot and wearing out sooner. In addition to this, the author claims that a new housing has been developed, which can easily be installed in the Beat-well mixer by the owner. He says that the new housing should be sent by the company to all the owners along with the installation instructions so that the mixers will function well and will last for a longer period of time. The argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument depends on no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

Firstly, the author gives no guarantee that the new housing will work in a more efficient manner and will not end up as the old housing. It might be possible that after installation of new housing also, the mixer will not run properly. Furthermore, one more flaw in the author's argument is that it says by reading the instruction manual, the owner can easily install the new housing.

The author failed to mention the other alternative that what if the owner fails to install the new housing. The author must have stated the point regarding any other other alternative like the company's person will come to the owner's place and fix the new housing. There is one more point which the argument failed to mention about the refund cost. The argument should have mentioned that if at all the new housing is also not fit, then the company would refund it or would give any other appliance. Thus, the argument remains weak, as there is no proper reasoning and examples.

Secondly, there is no proof in the assumption of the argument that there is a design flaw in the electric motor or some other defect. The mixer running hot can also be due to many other defective parts of the mixer. It might be possible that there is any defect in the motor part or in any other part of the machine, due to which there is improper functioning.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could have considerably strengthened if the author had mentioned full knowledge about the contribution factors. Without much information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.