▶ Your Answer :
In the above
statement, the author claims that the Happy Pancake House should replace butter
with margarine throughout the country to save cost. While supporting the
argument, however, the author makes numerous assumptions which cannot be taken
for granted and require further evidence.
To begin with,
the author purports that only 2 percent of customers in the southwestern United
States have complained about
a change from butter to margarine, however, this may not be the case. The data
could be insufficient to represent all customers; for instance, the data could
be collected for only a day when the number of customers is less than others.
Also, even though only 2 percent of customers have presented unfulfillment, it
cannot be concluded that the remain 98 percent of customers have been happy
with the change. Some people might not have filed a formal complaint, which
could be bothersome even if they are annoyed with the change. Thus, the author
should provide further information and details about the data to support the
argument that most customers have not dissented from the change.
Moreover, the
author concludes that the customers who asked for butter cannot distinguish
butter from margarine or they use the term ‘butter’ to refer to either butter
or margarine considering many servers have reported that most customers didn’t complain about
margarine. Not only could be the reporting conducted for a short period and
only about a few servers but also, it is possible that customers just did not revisit the
restaurant without any complaints, being disappointed with poor service;
likewise, even though it is only a small change, it could influence reputation
of a company and this could lead to decrease of profit. Therefore, the author should present further
evidence about representativeness of servers’ reports and variance of profit.
Finally, the
author says that the change should be extended to save cost throughout the rest
of the county. Even if effectiveness of the change is proven in the partial
area, it might not have been applied to all the country because there is no
guarantee that the southwestern region and the rest of the country have similar
conditions. For example, stores in the southwestern area could be visited by
tourists, therefore, most of them could not notice the change since they have
never visited there before. Hence, the author should offer proof that the adjustment can
receive the same
success with the southwestern area.
In sum, the
author’s claim is not convincing. Further evidence in terms of customers’ fulfillment
with the change, details of profit improvement as well as place analogy should
be provided to prove the conclusion. |