The following appeared in a memorandum from the vice president of Road Food, an international chain of fast-food

restaurants:
This past year, we spent almost as much on advertising as did our main competitor, Street Eats, which has fewer
restaurants than we do. Although it appeared at first that our advertising agency had created a campaign along the
lines we suggested, in fact our total profits were lower than those of Street Eats. In order to motivate our advertising
agency to perform better, we should start basing the amount that we pay it on how much total profit we make each
year.
The argument, in the form of a memorandum, claims that a fast-food restaurant chains budget spent on advertising
in the previous year did not materially convert to profits, while the competitor, spending just as much on advertising,
reaped higher profits than their own. Using this as evidence, the argument concludes that the advertising agency
should be paid on how much profit the restaurant chain makes. Stated in this way, the argument hides key
assumptions, lacks supporting evidence, and draws a conclusion that the premise does not make room for. As a
result, the logical framework of the argument is far from unassailable and needs to be thoroughly reassessed before
the implementing any suggestions contained therein.
First, the argument provides factual information about the restaurant chains advertising budget for the previous year,
which, as stated, is almost as much as that of their competitors, even though the competitor has fewer restaurants
than them. This information, while highly relevant, is still insufficient. There are many more factors that contribute to
the description of a restaurant business, not the least of which is the taste of the food, the accessibility of the
restaurants, the employee conduct, customer satisfaction, etc. The only other information about the competitor that is
provided is the number of restaurants they own. In the lack of all of this information, one cannot make a rational
analysis of a companys financial health. However, clearly violating this fundamental idea, the author is under the
impression that advertising alone is sole cause of the lower profits suffered by their company in the previous year
relative to their competitor. Their argument can be considerably strengthened if the author gave all of the crucial
information about the companys and their competitors operations, showed that they are identical in every aspect
except the advertising, and thus related that the companys weak advertising was the cause of their poor
performance.
Second, the advertising agency is insinuated to be at fault even though they complied with the campaign along the
lines suggested by the company. This is both unethical and illogical. The advertising agency was given an
assignment that they faithfully executed, without changing the ideas of the campaign or coming up with their own
modifications, and any financial outcome of this campaign is a consequence of the companys suggestions and not
the advertising agency. However, making a connection between the advertising agency and the profits would tempt
the company to use the advertising agency as a scapegoat instead of performing a technical analysis of the business
fundamentals, which is where the problem might actually lie.
Finally, as a direct consequence of the connection made above, the author erroneously recommends that the
advertising agency be paid according to the profits gained by the company instead of an agreed-upon fees. This is
patently absurd for two reasons: One, the advertising agency does not operate on the whims of the restaurant. The
self-interest of the advertising agency, and the advertising industry at large, precludes them from accepting the offer
of payments based on the profits they make for the company. Second, as mentioned, the advertisements, despite
being to the specifications requested, are not at fault, and the competitor might be exploiting a weakness in the
management of this company. None of this information, nor any concrete figures of sales and profits, are provided,
thus giving this suggestion no leg to stand on.
In summary, the argumentation is flawed for the aforementioned reasons and does not persuade. It could be
vindicated if the author provided all of the relevant facts and figures. In order to assess the merits of a situation or
decision, it is essential to have a good working knowledge of all of the contributing factors, without which the
argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.