The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls around the country. "The surface of a section of Route 101, paved just two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways, is now badly cracked with a number of danger

The vice president recommends hiring Appian Roadways to build new roads. These roads should not require to be repaired for at least four years. This conclusion is based on evidence which ought to be carefully questioned in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the soundness of the argument and prediction.

The main evidence of this argument is that a section of Rout 101 which was constructed by Good Intentions Roadways (GIR) two years ago has worse condition than a section of Route 40 which was built by Appian Roadways (AR) more than four years ago. However, is this comparison reasonable? Probably climate, weather, geographic locations of these roads are not equal. Consequently, these factors may dramatically affect the endurance of road surfaces. Moreover, one road may be heavily used by trucks and other heavy vehicles when the second road may be used rarely and by automobiles thus a road which is used more often will wear off faster than a part of road which is used rarely therefore, this evidence cannot be used to prove better quality of AR’s roads.

The second evidence which is shared with us is that AR has purchased new paving equipment with a new quality-control manager. This fact should serve as a proof of company's adherence to quality. At the same, time we do not know anything about the manager, perhaps, he or she has no or little, furthermore, the rival company may have similar equipment as well as a highly qualified control manager. Consequently, this evidence does not support author’s belief in superiority of AR over GIR.

Finally, the arguer claims that if company hires AR to construct new roads these roads will not require a repair for at least four ears. However, the examples which are used to support his claim are outdated. For instance, these companies may change their management, CEOs and policies, perhaps, employees who worked two and four years ago were substituted by new ones. In fact, we have no information about the current state of these two firms. Moreover, even if we assume that nothing changes, the extrapolation of two cases is not reasonable. The likeliness exists that other roads which were constructed by GIR serve in average more than four years and the roads of AR require to be repaired more often than the writer expects. In other words, the information which was used by the originator is insufficient to draw a thoughtful and coherent prediction.

In conclusion, the writer of the argument asserts that to be sure that new roads will not have to be repaired for at least 4 years and thus their construction should be given to AR; unfortunately, the writer does not manage create a solid foundation for his or her claim and thus the predicted result may not be acquired.