The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend."Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work

At first glance, the argument that Adams sells house quickly at a good price seems to make sense. However, after a close inspection, it is clear that the statement is lacking of convincing evidence and the author merely replys on unproven assumptions.

First the author claims that Adams has forty real estate agents and Fitch has twenty-five. Yet the statement does not indicate the number of employees in each firm. If Fitch had smaller number of employees working in higher efficiency than Adams' employees, there would be point that Fitch need to hire more premises. Furthermore, whether or not the employees working on a part-time basis is irrelevant to their performance as part-time employees, according to the results of social survey, can work as well as others, or even better.

Second, the arguement that Adams's last revenue was much more than Fitch does not explicity indicate whether it is a general revenue or the sum of several catagories. Becasue there is a possibility that Fitch could have more sales than Adams in a general terms. In addition to lacking of coherence of revenue, author does not explain whether the number is deduced before tax since different firms have different tax codes and it will results in a different profits.

Third, the statement refers to author's personal experience of two firms in two different periods and claims that Adams did the business more efficiently with better result. However, the author ignored the fact that general economic enviroment can effect people's consumption, particularly in housing market, in a remarkable level. Recession might lead to the collapse of sales in property business. Furthermore, author did not examplify how good the price that adams sold and what must be addressed is what was worth a good fortune ten years ago might not cost a peny nowaday due to inflation.

In conclusion, the statement is merely based on superficial results and neglects more important evidence underlying. More importantly, the assumptions author made is lacking of explicit details and relevant explanations. For these reasons,among others, the statment need to be further reinforced by considering more generally.