The following appeared in a memo from the president of a company that builds and sells new homes in Steel city.“Over the past five years, the population of steel city has increased by more than 20 percent, and family incomes in Steel City have risen muc

The writer makesthe concluon that a company that builds and sells new homes in Steel City needs to make changes in their business to increase company profits. He contends that they build and design houses that are above $150,000 in value, instead of low-priced houses. He also plans on hiring greater number of workers to increase the total number of houses than they built in last year. The arguer provides evidence in support of his claim that these two steps would lead to an increase in the company’s profits. First, he cited the increase in population in Steel City by more than 20 percent along with a much faster rise in the family incomes in this city, that is more than the national average. Second, he assumes that, Nationwide there has been a surge in the sale of high-priced houses than low-priced houses. However, the evidence provided by the arguer stands on questionable assumptions and is thus rendered indefensible.

The argument made by the arguer is rendered weak due to insufficiency of information. The arguer mentions that there has been an increase in the population of Steel City. He, however, does not mention why and how the population increased. This is to say that, whether the population increased because of immigration or increased birth rates. The arguer forgets to mention that retired people might have come back to their hometown, Steel City. If this is the case, then most of these people would not be interested in buying new houses, as they would already be having their old houses. Even if some rich, retired couple buy new houses, it does not portray the behaviour of the entire city regarding buying of new houses. Moreover, the population increase can be attributed to the influx of young and middle-aged people into Steel City for job purposes. These people mainly have disposable income which they will not invest in buying houses, rather they might rent houses. Furthermore, they will possibly not settle in Steel City permanently.

The second argument, concerning the much faster escalation of family incomes greater than the average national income, is also inadequate. The arguer’s assumption that an increased family income would only be used to buy new homes is partial and biased. People in Steel City might be more interested in using their money in other luxuries of life like travelling, expensive cars, education, and so on.

Thirdly, the arguer claims that nationwide the sale of $150,000 and above houses has soared up, which should also indicate that Steel City would also show a similar pattern in buying houses. However, the arguer ignores the fact that what is true for the rest of the nation might not be true for Steel City. The increased sale might have been seen in metropolitan and other big cities. His claims do contain lacunae and fail to provide reasons.

Finally, hiring of additional workers to build more number of houses is a flawed decision. The company might not be in a situation to invest so much on paying these extra workers. Moreover, in order to accommodate the additional workers, if they cut down the salaries of existing employees, it will adversely affect the workers. This might also bring down workers’ motivation and in turn harm the company. Most importantly, if this entire plan does not succeed the company will suffer tremendous losses from which they might not be able to recover.

As discussed above the arguer’s arguments rests on a number of factors that have not been substantiated with sufficient detail and evidence. The arguer had very narrowly assumed that increase in population in Steel City meant increase in sale of expensive houses. Also, he asserted that their rising family incomes will be spent only on buying new houses. Moreover, he anticipated that nationwide upsurge of sale of those high-end houses also indicated a high sale in Steel City. The overall argument is very narrow as he did not consider alternative possibilities of his claims. If the arguer had portrayed a more holistic picture of the situation and provided evidence that residents of Steel City could have afforded such house high-priced houses, his claims would have been more persuasive. Therefore, the argument fails to convince the reader that building more pricey houses and hiring more workers will prove to be profitable for the company.