During a two-week study of postal operations, the Presto City post

The argument concludes that the postmasters of Presto City and Lento City should exchange assignments as this will solve the problems of inefficiency and customer dissatisfaction at the Lento City, while the Lento City postmaster learns firsthand the superior methods of Presto City. Stated in this way, the argument uses poor reasoning and manipulates facts to convey a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that a two-week study of postal operations of two cities is indicative of the general postal volumes of these cities throughout the year. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. Two weeks in a year is too short of a time to evaluate the annual postal volumes of any city. Holiday season, combined with demographic variations such as median age in these cities might cause the results of the study to be distorted. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated all the relevant differences between the two cities, and considered a much longer period of study or a two-week period every quarter that is more indicative of postal volumes throughout the year.

Second, the argument claims that customer satisfaction appears to be higher in Presto City, since the study found fewer complains regarding the Presto City post office. This is again a very weak statement. The argument assumes that everyone who has a complaint with the post office, registered their complaint. However, this may not always be true. Further, the argument would be weakened if it were true that many people of the Presto City registered their complains after the two-week period of the study ended. If the argument had provided evidence that everyone who had a complaint regarding the Presto City post office registered their complaint within the two-week study period, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, has the author considered the differences in wages of the employees of the postal system in both the cities? Also, has the author considered the effects of inefficiency and customer dissatisfaction at the Presto City due to exchanged assignments between the two postmasters? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with an impression that the claim is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is weak and flawed for the above mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had mentioned all the facts, such as relevant differences between the two cities that would affect the postal system, everyone registering their complain within the two-week period, and wages of the employees in the two cities. In order to assess the merits of the claim that the postmasters of the two cities should exchange assignments, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.