In this argument, the arguer concludes that sending the mechanics of GAA to a two-week QCS on proper maintenance procedures will automatically lead to improved maintenance and to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for the airline. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the performance of the maintenance crews in the automobile racing industry improved markedly after their crews had attended the seminar. In addition, the arguer reasons that since the maintenance crews of the automobile racing industry and the mechanics of GAA perform many of the same functions, the airlines will gain similar benefits from the training program. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
In this argument, the arguer recommends that C should advise its citizens to install both air conditioners and fans for cooling in order to reduce the cost of electricity. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that many citizens of C suffer from the rising costs of electricity. In addition, he cites the result of a recent study that using fans alone costs more than using air conditioners alone, and that using both fans and air conditioners costs less than either using fans or air conditioners alone. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
In this analysis, the arguer claims that P University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member that they hire. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of B College where professors prefer to have their spouse employed in the same geographical area. In addition, the arguer assumes that this offer of possible job for their spouse on the campus, no matter whether it will be accepted, is the only factor that new professors consider in deciding whether to accept a university position. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
In this argument, the arguer advocates that the C Corporation should hire DF, a family owned local company that offers varied menu of fish and poultry, instead of GT Company, the present supplier of food in C’s employee cafeteria. The recommendation is based on the observation that the GT is expensive, that its prices have kept rising, that it does not serve special diets, and that three employees complained about it. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes D to be a better choice for C because a sample lunch of this company that the arguer happened to taste was delicious. This argument is problematic for two reasons.
The conclusion in this argument is that F College can expect to increase enrollment by promising to find jobs for students after graduation. In support of this prediction, the arguer claims that college-bound students are increasingly concerned about job prospects after graduation. Moreover, the arguer assumes that this attempt has three benefits: (1) to enable F to compete with more famous schools; (2) to encourage students to start career preparation early; (3) to encourage students to complete their coursework. This argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.