The business manager in his memorandum has concluded that their television station should increase the time devoted to weather and local news by cutting off the broadcast of national news in order to increase their viewership and advertising revenues. He has reached this conclusion citing the record that the most of the complaints were regarding the concern with the station's coverage of weather and local news. While his conclusion may be valid, the given piece of memorandum is rife with holes and assumptions, which unless clarified with additional information, highly weaken his contention.

First of all, the manager assumes that the most of the complaints being related to the lack of station's coverage of weather and local news is really concering. In doing this, he disregards the fact that the total number of complaints could have been reduced due to the station broadcasting more of the national content, so the small number of the complains may have appeared large in proportion. For example maybe there were 10 complains last year, with one complain concering the local news, whereas there are 1 complain this year which is concerned with the local news. The proportion of the complain concerning the local news has increased drastically but the number has not. So in order to increase the persuasiveness of his conclusion, by avoiding such illusion, the manager will have to provide additional information on the number and types of complains.

The manager has further implied that the local businesses cancelling the advertising contract with them will lead to the loss of advertising revenues, which may not be entirely true. Perhaps the renowned national business will offer them a mega contract, taking their revenues to the unprecedented height. It is also possible that the local businesses have pulled out because they think that the advetising in such reputed TV station will now be not affordable to them as a bigger local business is preparing a bigger offer. Hence unless the situation is further clarified, the conclusion cannot be held valid.

Moreover, the manager, citing the cancellation of the advertisement contract, assumes that they are losing the viewers. This assumption again is not provided with enough evidence to accept its credibility. There may rather be a hike in the viewership of the station which has made the advertising in the station too lucrative due to which the old small companies have left the spots for the bigger ones wanting to advertise. Perhaps the increased complains is due to the increased local viewership and the manager has been looking at it the wrong way. If any of such scenarios prove to be true manager's contention is highly weakened.

Thus, although the manager's argument may hold water, his claims lack proper support. Hence, unless the manager clarifies the ambiguous assumptions in his memorandum with the scientifically fetched data, his suggestion to restore the time devoted to local and weather news cannot be taken as seriously as it should have been.