Argument Task-"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.

The argument claims that, one should invest in consolidated industries to get profits as it's major business operations of this industries is retail sale of home heating oil. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The author have come to this conclusion based on the premise that, most homes in northeastern United States used oils as their major fuel for heating and further, there will be a huge demand for oil as the forecasters predicted that the temperature will be below normal temperatures in the coming days. This conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and, has several flaws.

First of all, the author readily assumes that there will be huge demand for oil based on the past oil usage and climatic conditions. However, this might not be the case as the statement is a stretch and not substantiated in anyways. Perhaps people use electric methods for home heating instead of using oil as fuel for heating. Further, the oil might be in a declined state due to excessive usage and people tend to use other mode for home heating. If either of these has merit, then the conclusion drawn from original argument is significantly weakened.

Second, the argument claims that increase in population growth will lead to more oil usage. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between population growth and oil usage. For instance, the population growth may lead to alternative source for heating instead of using oil. If the argument had provided evidence that growth in population requires more oil, then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.

Finally, the argument assumes that retail sale of home heating oil profits solely helps the investors in Consolidated industries to gain profits. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's conclusion in several critical respects, and raises several skeptical questions. For example, What is the share of retail sale of oil in the industry? What are other possible operations in this industry?. Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that claims made by author are more of a wishful thinking rather that substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a detailed analysis of consolidated industries profits. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.