The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company withfood 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-food

The author believes that to save more money they should work with the Buzzoff Company (BC), instead of working with Fly _Away Pest Control Company (FC). This conclusion is grounded in a comparison between the function of the two pest control companies in two different warehouses. The author fails to incorporate the vital evidences into the argument. To make the argument clear, the following evidences are needed.

First, the author compares the performance of each company in a different location. While in Palm city the warehouse under the control of FC lost over $20,000 in last month, the damage by pests in the warehouse kept by of BC in Wintervale was equal to $10,000. The author needs to provide an evidence on how corresponding these two warehouses are with each other. The size of one which damaged more severely might be much bigger than the other one. Furthermore, the Palm city’s warehouse might be located in a warm place favorable for pests to reproduce, while in Wintervale the climate might be harsh for pests. If these are the case, we cannot surely attribute the losses to the function of FC. The author should provide enough evidences to rule out any alternative explanations opposing his/her view.

Secondly, the FC’s work is assessed in just one month. It is completely possible that fighting against pests takes time and such a fighting should be assessed in the more extended amount of time. Many of the methods influence the productivity and hatching process of pests. This might not be manifested during one month, and as the time goes by the efficiency of FC might be averred. Hence, the author needs evidences showing the performance of the FC within the more extended time to judge its efficiency evenhandedly.

Thirdly, assuming that the whole previous evidences lead us to give credence to the author’s conclusion, yet one crucial evidence is missing. The author needs a firm evidence attesting that the contract price is balanced with precluding pest’s damages. It is possible that the bid for working with BC is exorbitantly high. Thus the decision might not be a profitable one for the food company. At the same time, the offer of the lesser price of the FC can outshine the damage of the pests in the pertaining warehouse. We should have a clue to judge whether the profitability comes with such a decision or not.

In short, as discussed, the lack of several vital evidences has rendered the statement unable to evaluate. The discussed evidences make us certain in evaluating the performance comparison and the possible loss or profit of working with either of the companies.