The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client.
"Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienced twenty days with below-average temperatures, and local weather forecasters throughout the region predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes have been built in this region during the past year. Because of these developments, 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 discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.






The author recommends investing in Consolidated Industries as it is one of the major business operations in the retail sale of home heating oil. After scrutinizing on the given premises, it is merely an assumption made without much solid ground which the author is required to provide more evidence to support his argument.

First of all, the argument stated that people in the northeastern United States have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. While many people are using oil as their major fuel for heating, however, the author fails to provide more evidence to support his recommendation. Neither any study was conducted nor given any figure about the number of people using oil as major fuel for heating. It is uncertain regarding the number of people using oil as major fuel for heating. If there are other cheaper alternatives such as electricity and solar, then oil may not be used as major fuel. It is essential to determine the number of people in the northeastern United States to understand the potential use of oil in these areas. If the majority of people are using oil as major fuel for heating, then it is possible to invest in Consolidated Industries.

The author also points out that the region is experiencing below-average temperature, and forecast weather has predicted that It will continue for several years. However, there are too many imponderables in the future that we cannot predict. We may not know whether it will continue for several years as there is a lot of uncertainty in the future. It is possible that the region may not experience any below-average temperature in the future. It is imprudent to invest in Consolidated Industries just because of the forecasted weather. If the author can more concrete evidence that the northeastern United States will experience harsh weather, then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.

Finally, the author claims that there were many homes erected in northeastern United State in the recent year. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion in several critical respects, and raises several skeptical questions. For example, it does not clearly state whether all those newly built houses will be fully occupied by people. Secondly, it is unknown that out of those people who bought the house, how many of them will purchase oil as the major source of heating. Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen its argument, the author must provide more evidence, perhaps by detailed analysis or conducted a reliable survey to assess the recommendation of investing in Consolidated Industries. If the firm is able to supply more evidence, then it can reliably accept the suggestion of investing Consolidated Industries.