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

The conclusion drawn by the writer is weak and lacks substantial proofs. He claims that Adams realty is better than Fitch. The conclusion is supported by many weak assumptions rather than strong evidences which are ambiguous by nature. Assumptions are based on dubious data about number of agents, its revenue and ability to sell house faster. Close scrutiny of these evidences reveal that it lends a little credible support and further should be analyzed in depth for reaching an unbiased conclusion. Quite a few numbers of arguments have been put forward by the author to pursue his friend but there are many unstated assumptions and ambiguities in his reasoning.

First of all, author’s conclusion is based on the number of agents working on both the firms. Adam has forty agents while Fitch has twenty-five. He assumes that more agents working mean better service. Writer does not mention any factors like qualification, work experience of the agents. The efficiency of a company is more of a measure of quality than quantity. Perhaps, agents in Fitch who works for less hours have more experience, are more productive, efficient, versatile and eloquent such that even forty people of Adams cannot accomplish what twenty-five agents of Fitch can. Writer has also nowhere mentioned about the quality of service. Maybe, Fitch renders better service. Author has failed to mention about the source of the statistical data. If the data been procured is not from a reliable source, the whole argument loses its basis. Giving substantial data with its reliable source would have validated the author’s argument and made a cogent case.

Additionally, author implies that since Adam’s revenue is twice as high as that of Fitch, Adam is superior. However, the writer has not mentioned about the service charge. It is possible that Adam is making more profit due to its high service charge which might be adversely affecting the home-seller. Another possibility is perhaps Adam sells only high-priced homes, such that average selling price is more and hence the profit. Also, it is not logical to claim that Adam is superior because of its high revenue of one year. It is certain that one cannot predict the overall efficiency of a firm based on just previous year’s output. Author should consider the fact that firms and business have their own ups and downs. The writer would have buttressed his stance by providing such data that would help his friend take an unbiased decision.

The writer has claimed that homes listed under Fitch sell slowly based on his own experience ten years back when his home took four months to sell. He further supports his claim by mentioning how his home listed under Adams was sold just in a month last year. However, he has failed to put light on certain necessary parameters like size, structure, location, legal documents of the house. It is possible that the recent house he sold was more luxurious, was located in a central location, had no legal hassles to deal with and hence was easier to sell whereas it might not be the case for the previous one. Also, author should consider that ten years is a long time and real estate market scenario got changed and also the predilection and demands of consumers could have changed. Without establishing that all other factors affecting the speed of the sale were essentially same for the two homes, author cannot rely on the limited anecdotal evidence to support his claim.

Succinctly, though, he has points in putting his case but his argument is superficial in nature and should be supported by convincing facts like agents qualification, work experience, firms’ detailed financial analysis, time required by the firm to sell two homes similar in infrastructure, location, extent to which real estate market changed during the decade. In order to strengthen and concrete his argument, he should have provided more evidences to fill the gaps mentioned here.