. The following appeared in a memorandum from a member of a financial management and consulting firm. “We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about ten percent of the last month’s purchasing invoic

The argument claims that Windfall Ltd. helped a company in saving about $10,000 by checking about ten percent of the company's purchase invoices for errors and inconsistencies. Hence, the financial management and consulting firm thinks that if it takes help from the Windfall Ltd., its firm could increase the net gains. The firm feels that with the help of the accounting department of Windfall Ltd., the firm's purchase invoices will be checked thoroughly for errors and inconsistencies. The argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument is based on unclear assumptions and there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that if one company was satisfied with the accounting of Windfall Ltd., then naturally, other firm can also be satisfied. This is an invalid assumption made by the author as the company might not be similar to the financial and consulting firm. It might be possible that the company was small with no big confusion in its account statements. As a result, the Windfall Ltd. easily helped it and saved $10,000. This method of accounting could not be helpful to a financial management and consulting firm because the accounts maintained in a financial and consulting firm are quite vast and very confusing. Therefore, the Windfall may not be helpful in checking out the purchase invoices of the firm and direct them to increase the net gains and guide them in an effective manner.

Secondly, if Windfall has to help the consulting firm in accounting and increasing the net gains, it has to understand the accounting procedures of that particular firm. It might not be possible for Windfall to understand the rigorous accounting methods of the financial management and consulting firm because in a consulting firm, the accounting method usually followed is totally different from the other companies. The argument could have been much clearer if it stated another other features of the Windfall Ltd. Without convincing answers to the question, one is left with an assumption that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of a particular situation, one must have full information regarding the company and features of the Windfall Ltd. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.