The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities."Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our fast-food

This is an excerpt from the vice president of a food distribution company who cites differences among the two pest control services and their damages on the companies' food storages; and considers the Buzzoff pest control company better than the Fly-Away company based upon the series of the factors. However, this recommendation cannot be accepted as it stands; whereas, there are unsubstantiated clues for adherence of which there is not enough cogent reasons.

Firstly, the manager fails to assure me about the memo, because he/she overlooks or over-presents the status of his/her warehouse before the contract. Maybe, the foods were contaminated before the contract; but it was rejected due to his/her stuffs' carelessness. Thus, in this scenario, the new service cannot be evaluated aptly. Moreover, as it cited it is the new contract, and the Fly-Away company presents its service in the short period as a month; in addition, if the area was polluted by the pests before the service there is a need for long period observation to be assure from their efficacy, and comparing it with the Buzzoff Company, which renders service for a long period.

Secondly, this memo faces the shortcoming of the information form the stores condition. As it mentioned, there are two warehouses that allocated in the different spot of the United States, and there is no any concrete evidence and data about their environmental conditions. Maybe, one of them located in the humid region, which presents a sufficient survival condition for the pests, on the other hand, the another one is located in the dried spot with strict situation for the pest's surviving. Thus, it illustrates there are other factors beyond the pest control services, which are effective in the foods' damages, however it is overlooked in this note.

Finally, the leader does some self-prove and self-calculate about the economic benefits of these two services and draws the conclusion just based upon the services’ charges. However, the monetary benefit is defined due to charge plus the damages’ monetary effect; which in this scenario, there is no any cogent and concrete statistic to draw the defined conclusion about their cost-effectiveness and assaying which one is better.

To conclude, several facts present in the note, but vaguely. The writer's conclusion cannot be assumed to be accurate. In fact overlooking and over-presenting some significant point which mentioned above, like the warehouse's past statues, environmental condition of the store, and the scat of the statistic data about the service's economic benefits, put some doubts about the memo's accuracy.