The following appeared in a memo from the president of Bower Builders, a company that constructs new homes."A nationwide survey reveals that the two most-desired home features are a large family room and a large, well-appointed kitchen. A number of homes

The argument above is well-presented and appears to be relatively sound at first glance: since a recent national survey and the sales of the competitor indicate that home features with a large family room and kitchen, it seems logical to conclude that the Bower Buiders should adopt to this trend. However, as more light is shed on the issues and detailed information is concerned, the unsubstantiated assumptions lead me to question the validity of the argument.

The first assumption the author makes is that the result of the recent nationwide survey can be taken at face value. Since the two most-desired home features are a large family room and a cutting-edge kitchen, the author hastily assumes that people will purchase houses if they contain these features. However, it should be noted that the people’s action is not equivalent to their desire. In other words, even though they desire to live in those houses, they may not be able to buy them due to exorbitant costs or location. Therefore, the author should corroborate the validity of the survey.

In addition, the author assumes that the competitor could sell many houses at higher price since they modify those houses with these desired features. However, the author should take into account that the houses by the competitors could sell faster and at higher prices not because they have those features but because they were located in convenient locations. Therefore, with further information, the author’s assertion of the causality between desired home features and faster and higher sales of houses can be accurately evaluated.

Lastly, the recent customers’ preference on home features can represent the preference of future customers is assumed by the author. Because the recent buyers say they do not need a separate dining room for family meals, the author hastily assumes that all the houses can come at the expense of the dining room. However, in all likelihood, the future customers may prefer to maintain the original structure of house with decent dining room. In such a case, the author’s assumption that larger family rooms and kitchens can come at the cost of the dining room can be illogical.

In conclusion, the argument is not cogent in many respects. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide the soundness of the survey, elucidate the causality between the desired features and high sales of houses, and verify the demand of future customers.