The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants."Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have compla

This excerpt from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurant cites a replacement of butter by margarine in his/her southwestern branch, and based upon the series of proofs, presents it as a decent idea from economic; furthermore, toward its cost-effecting it will be expend to the southeast and northeast restaurant too. However, this recommendation cannot be accepted as it stands; whereas, it rests on a number of unsubstantiated presumptions, for the advocating of which there is not enough cogent evidence.

Firstly, the manager fails to assure me about the accuracy of the statistic out-come, which renders in the memo. The manager refers to a study but does not how many people took part in the survey reported. In the survey the greater the number of the people in the specimen, the more reliable and valid the finding are. The mentioned statistic is based upon the percentage and there is no any hint to the quantities of the participated people; maybe, it will be just 20 people, who deliver their desires toward the new replacement and change. In this scenario the 98% of the 20 people is negligible. Thus, as it stands the statistic that the manger cites amounts to scant evidence that can be disrespected.

Moreover, if the statistic contains a plethora case study, which makes its conclusion respected one; it will have a shortcoming in the demographic aspect. In a research study, the finding can be generalized to the target population if the sample used is representative of the concerned population in all direction, it can be age, sex, social sate, economical level, and etc. In this scenario, for approbation of this statistic, sharing the same desire for the margarine taste among the customers, is one of the fundaments for extending the statistic out-come to other branches. However, sharing the same desire for tasting of the food is mutable in the small family; absolutely, it will be different among the branches, which allocated in varies geographical spots of United States. So, it illustrates the weakness of the evidence to adhere its presumption.

Finally, based on the note, there is a plan for delivering this cost-saving change to other restaurants in the southeast and northeast; on the other hand, there is no any cogent evidence or proof to advocate this scheme's success on the other branches. Maybe, southeast and northeast restaurant’s customers have the keen judgement about the taste and the new taste is not based upon their favors and they ignore their pancakes. In this case, they will face some knotty economic problems, instead of monetary benefits. Consequently, there is not enough cogent reason to make safe decision solely spur to one branch’s success on the cost-saving plan and attribute it to other restaurants too.

To conclude, several facts do suggest, but only vaguely. The writer's recommendation cannot be considered as a correct. In fact, the overlooking and over-presenting some significant points like quantities of the case-studies, demographic parameters, and sufficient reasons as an adherence for the success in the other branches put some doubts about the memo's accuracy. Therefore, the facts, if articulated more clearly with the mentioned points, can only bring the recommendation to be implemented, as it has been anticipated to be succeeded.