Of the two leading real estate firms in our town Adams Realty and Fitch Realty Adams Realty is clearly superior Adams has 40 real estate agents in contrast Fitch has 25 many of whom work only part time Moreover Adams revenue last year was twice as high as

The argument asserts that among the two existing real estate firms in a particular town, one of them (Adams Reality) is more prosperous than its rival (Fitch Reality). The author then refers to the number of agents which each of these firms possess and also the amount of revenue that each of them has gained during the last year. In the next step, the writer tries to prove his assertion by exemplifying his own case, and comparing the function of these two firms in selling the writer's home. The argument concludes that the Adams Reality is more successful and serves his clients better than the Fitch Reality. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First and foremost, the argument is based on this assumption that because the number of Adam’s agents is more than the Fitch's, the Adams is working more properly. This assumption is not acceptable at all, Adam's agents may be smaller than the Fitch’s and may work less efficiently. Quality is more important than quantity and as a result, the author should provide the reader with more information to prove that each of the Adam's agents is working better and more efficient than the Fitch's.

Another threshold assumption which the letter relies on is that because the revenue of the Adams reality is more than the Fitch's the Adams Reality is superior. The author actually gives the readers no more information. First of all, what does the author means by revenue. If it means the whole revenue of the Reality firms, we should consider that the function of these realities should be analyzed based on the average of the revenues of each of their agents. This is plausible that the revenue of each of the agents in Fitch reality is more than the Adams reality, and because the Fitch's agents are fewer the sum of them becomes less than Adams. Another substantial issue is that, the author did not mention that whether the revenue is the net revenue or just the income of the firms. If the revenue is not net, it is plausible that by subtracting taxes and the wages of the employees of the Adams (because it has more agents) the net revenue become less than the Fitch's.

The letter also fails to substantiate this crucial assumption that the function of the Fitch reality is not as good as the Adams, now. The author compares the function of the Fitch reality ten years ago, with the Adams reality in last year. It is not an appropriate comparison. There may be a great deal of reasons which led to the delay in selling the author's home ten years ago, which was not in last year. In addition, the houses were not the same. Maybe the author's house ten years ago was harder to be sold because of its own defects.

By sum it all up, I believe that the argument is not persuasive, it can become more admissible by adding some information about the revenue of each of the agents in each of the firms and providing more information about the process of selling home by each of the firms.