■ Directions: You will have 30 minutes to plan and write a critique of an argument presented in the form of a short passage. A critique of any other argument will receive a score of zero. Analyze the line of reasoning in the argument. Be sure to consider what, if any, questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and, if evidence is cited, how well it supports the conclusion.

60. The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice for a client. 

"Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last heating season that region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures, and climate forecasters predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes are being built in the region in response to recent population growth. Because of these trends, we predict an increased demand for heating oil and recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil." 

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

In this letter, an investment firm argues that because the demand for fuel will increase, the client should invest in Consolidated Industries. Although this assumption seems convincing at first, the lack of assumption leads clients to question the validity of the argument.

To begin with, the investment firm’s argument is based on the first assumption that most houses in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold so they usually used oil as their major fuel for heating. Although fuel is the most effective source to make fire for heating, not many years are passed since humans use oil as fuel for heating. There was not much oil and we did not know for most of the earth’s years that we can use oil as the fuel for the fire. So people all over the world including the United States used wood as a traditional fuel for heating.

Second, investment advice giving firm assumes that last heating season that region experiences 90 days with under-normal temperatures, and climate forecasters predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. However, this expectation is just a prediction from climate forecasters so this kind of weather pattern might have not continued for several years. It is possible that this weather pattern lasted for several years but not this year. Or it is plausible that this pattern has ended before this year.

Another assumption that an investment firm makes is that because of the recent population growth which leads to the prediction that demand for heating oil will increase, the client should invest in Consolidated Industries where a major business operation is the retail sale of home heating oil. In these sentences above, Consolidated Industries’ one of their major industry is retailing oil but that does not mean they only make money from retailing oil. They might have an equal population in other industries that are not profitable.

In summary, the argument in the advice on where to invest is unpersuasive in many aspects. To strengthen the argument, the firm needs to rethink the assumptions in detail.