The editor of a local newspaper sent the following memo to the managing editor of the paper Three years ago when we surveyed our subscribers they complained about the quality of the reporting and writing in the paper Since that time we have made a concert

The argument that hire the most experienced journalist and gradually fire our younger, less experienced reporters omits some very important considerations that are necessary to get a full 360-degree view of the described scenario. The argument does not provide substantive evidence to be able to prove or even support the main conclusion from the given premises.

First, the argument readily assumes that quality of reporting and writing is lacked in the younger, less experienced journalists. At the first we have to check whether the survey is done genuinely taken from customers. In further we check whether quality of report was taken when small mistakes might have been done by younger journalists. So recognizing the result on a single survey doesn't make decision to fire younger reporters. So the average of two to three surveys should be taken into account. For example if you remove your slave for not preparing the tea well on that day its sound odd, you should excuse her and give a chance. If this mistake repeats again then you should take necessary action.

Second, the argument claims that subscriber base grown by 13%, but they also rated higher on both reporting and writing .The subscriber base was grown by 13% because it might be possible that other all subscribers were worst in reporting .Reporting and writing might be rated high because other all other may have worse than them.

Lastly, the argument fails to account for the fact that to increase our readership, we should hire the most experienced journalists and gradually fire our younger, less experienced reporters. Now we came to know, not to take any decisions especially on firing the young reporters without analyzing completely because younger brains have better ideas, inventiveness than experienced ones.

In summary, the argument is extremely flawed because of the above-mentioned reasons and hence comes across as weak and unconvincing to the reader. If the author had mentioned all the relevant facts that are essential to objectively assess the situation under consideration, the argument would have been much stronger. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.”