Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States Only about 2 percent of customers have complained indicating that 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change Furthermore many server

The argument states that Happy Pancake House restaurants in southwestern United States have substituted butter for margarine. The author further states that only two percent of customers complain about the change and assumes that the remaining 98 percent are content with the change. The argument concludes that customers do not sense the difference between butter and margarine and thus to avoid expense purchasing butter, the author proposes that the Happy Pancake House restaurants extend this change to other restaurants in southeast and northeastern United States. The author’s claim relies on assumptions that are not supported by compelling evidence, which makes for a weak argument.

Firstly, the author states that only 2 percent of the clients complain with regards to the change and assumes that the other 98 percent are happy with the transformation. However the author makes no mention of complaints before the change and also does not provide apt evidences that assure us the other 98 percent of the clients are indeed happy. It is possible that amongst the people that did not complain, some are merely silent and do not voice their censorious opinions or they simply avoid the restaurant.

Secondly, the author makes mention that a number of people do not complain when given margarine even though they ordered for butter and thus assumes that the customers do not know the difference between butter and margarine. This claim is also not supported by tenable evidence. It is possible that when customers make a purchase order for butter and are given margarine, because of their similar appearance, they are not able to discern the difference at the counter but probably notice them at home when they taste or cook with them. The author should carryout thorough investigation by conducting surveys to understand the opinions of clients on butter and margarine.

Thirdly, the argument concludes that the change adopted by Happy Pancake House restaurants should also be implemented by other restaurants within the nation. The argument infers that butter is more expensive than margarine, but makes no mention of whether or not there is increased sales and profit accrued from the transformation. If the change has saved cost without compromise of the quality of the food, then the argument shows promise, but if not, then the change would have no auspicious contributions to the restaurants that adopt it.

Even if the substitution is a productive one for Happy Pancake House restaurants, the argument does not provide evidence that expanding the change to affect the southeastern and northeastern parts of the U.S. would equivalently be auspicious. The author has to preclude the differences between the different regions and their consequence on the general profitability. Perhaps the S..E or N.E residents are more refined in their taste and would not ignore the change or margarine may be more costly in those regions etc.

In conclusion, the argument presented is interesting, but does not provide the required evidences to justify the underlying assumptions. The argument could be more persuasive, if the author mentions evidences that evince the state of mind the 98 percent of clients that did not make complaints, evidences that support the claim of clients not being able to discern between butter and margarine and whether implementation of the change is profitable in attracting more customers and saving cost.