In this argument the speaker recommends that, in order to save money, Happy Pancake
House (HPH) should serve margarine instead of butter at all its restaurants. To support the
argument, the speaker points out that HPH's Southwestern restaurants now serve margarine
but not butter, and that only 2% of these restaurants' customers have complained about the
change. The speaker also cites reports from many servers that a number of customers asking
for butter have not complained when given margarine instead. This argument is unconvincing
for several reasons.
First of all, the speaker does not indicate how long these restaurants have been refusing
margarine to customers. If the change is very recent, it is possible that insufficient data have
been collected to draw any reliable conclusions. Lacking this information I cannot assess the
reliability of the evidence for the purpose of showing that HPH customers in the Southwest are
generally happy with the change.
Secondly, the speaker fails to indicate what portion of HPH customers order meals calling
for either butter or margarine. Presumably, the vast majority of meals served at any pancake
restaurant call for one or the other. Yet it is entirely possible that a significant percentage of
HPH customers do not order pancakes, or prefer fruit or another topping instead. The greater this percentage, the less meaningful any statistic about the level of customer satisfaction
among all of HPH's Southwestern customers as an indicator of preference for butter or
margarine.
Thirdly, the speaker unfairly assumes that HPH customers unhappy with the change
generally complain about it. Perhaps many such customers express their displeasure simply
by not returning to the restaurant. The greater the percentage of such customers, the weaker
the argument's evidence as a sign of customer satisfaction with the change. Two additional
problems specifically involve the reports from "many" servers that "a number" of customers
asking for butter do not complain when served margarine instead. Since the speaker fails to
indicate the percentage of servers reporting or customers w,-ho have not complained to
servers, this evidence is far too vague to be meaningful. Also, the speaker omits any mention
of reports from servers about customers who have complained. Since the anecdotal evidence
is one-sided, it is inadequate to assess overall customer satisfaction with the change.
Finally, even if HPH's Southwest customers are happy with the change, the speaker unfairly
assumes that customers in other regions will respond similarly to it. Perhaps Southwesters
are generally less concerned than other people about whether they eat margarine or butter. Or
perhaps Southwesters actually prefer margarine to butter, in contrast to prevailing tastes
elsewhere. Or perhaps Southwesters have relatively few choices when it comes to pancake
restaurants.
In sum, the speaker's argument is weak. To better assess it I would need to know: (1) how
long the change has been in effect in the Southwest, (2) what percentage of HPH servers
and managers have received customer complaints about the change, and (3) the number of
such complaints as a percentage of the total number of HPH customers who order meals
calling for either butter or margarine. To strengthen the argument, the speaker must provide
clear evidence--perhaps by way of a reliable survey--that HPH customers in other regions are
likely to be happy with the change and continue to patronize HPH after the change
علاقه مندی ها (Bookmarks)