The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities.
Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our fast-fo

The author of this memo advances a specious argument regarding the expenses that the food distribution company could potentially save up via returning to Buzzoff, rather than continuing with the use of Fly-Away, for pest control services. Although the author’s argument appears ostensibly compelling, more pieces of specific evidence are in exigent demand in order for a comprehensive and thorough consideration of whether or not switching back to Buzzoff for its pest control services would be efficacious or not.

To begin with, the author audaciously assumes that every part and parcel of the two warehouses is identical, save the pest control companies servicing them. What is not pellucid, however, is pertinent to such specifics of the two warehouses as their size and the types of food ingredients stashed inside. It might be the case that the warehouse in Palm city is three times larger than that in Wintervale. Given its enormous storage capacity, the warehouse in Palm city would reasonably witness more pest damage. In fact, if the percentage of pest damage, in lieu of the gross number of pest damage, in the Palm City warehouse is statistically lower than that in the Wintervale warehouse, the argument asserted by the author would be weakened; that is, the control service of Flyway Pest Control Company would certainly be more effective than that of Buzzoff Pest Control Company. The author’s argument can be further cemented or weakened, were the information regarding the specific information of food stored in the two warehouses provided. One plausible scenario might be that the food ingredients stored in the warehouse at Palm City are more susceptible to mold and decay, thus attracting a swarm of pernicious pests, which in turn further the damage, whereas the counterparts in the ware at Wintervale City are more resistant to the deterioration, thereby making the reportage of pest damage significantly less frequent. The author’s failure to furnish such evidence for corroboration renders his main argument highly suspicious. Even with these pieces of information proffered, the author would still have to delineate the weather conditions in these two cities since differing climate patterns might have clout on the proliferation and the invasion of pests. On the basis of the names of those two cities, one can rationally infer that Palm City is located in a warm, humid locale, where rodents or worms can easily propagate and colonize the warehouse therefore, and that Wintervale has a lower temperature and a cooler, drier air, the condition of which can easily stave off the reproduction of pests. Accordingly, the author could have made his own argument much more tenable had he presented such comparative information as the weather of the two cities, the types of the food stored, and the percentage of the pest damage in each warehouse.

Another respect that should have been taken into account lies in the figures in the memo. The author makes this assumption that last month over $20,000 worth of food at the Palm City had been damaged by pests, and merely $10,000 at Wintervale. However, one month of the amount of damage cannot soundly validate the efficacy of the service by the Buzzoff. To be more specific, it might be the case that last month’s excessive amount of pest damage in the warehouse at Palm City is an anomaly. The same might also apply to the warehouse in Wintervale: $10,000 from last month’s pest damage was a lull or respite before the amount of jeopardy by pests would pick up again in Wintervale in the next few months to above $20,000, for instance. Therefore, the author would have made a cogent case if he could have deliberated and mulled over the data from the previous months; otherwise, the food distribution company should not return to the Buzzoff company for all its pest control services, as stated in the original argument.

Last, the causality between the Flyway pest service and the increased damage at the warehouse in Palm City seems rather flimsy in that there are a host of variables that can exert negative influence on the food storage and further pest damage. To exemplify, the employees at the warehouse in Palm City might fail to pay meticulous attention to stocking food properly, thus compromising the effectiveness of the services that Fly-away provides. Unless the author illustrates other factors that contribute to the increased pest damage at the warehouse in Palm City, designating the blame solely on the Fly-away is anything but rational.

The author’s claim to return to Buzzoff’s service is arguably misguided and weakly substantiated. To make more believable and argumentatively established the augment of using Buzzoff instead of Fly-away for controlling the pests in the warehouses, the author should have provided necessary evidence as well as information on the size of the warehouses and the type of food ingredients that they store, along with details about the weather conditions in those cities. The author’s argument would be more compelling if he could incorporate retrospective information about the previous figures of pest damage to make an projection about whether the increased or decreased pest damage would likely continue. Last, the author could make a stronger case by addressing if there are any other factors that feed into the pest damage.