activatedgeek

Hi, hoping if somebody could review my response to an argument task. Thank you! PROMPT The following appeared in a memo from New Ventures Consulting to the president of HobCo, Inc., a chain of hobby shops. "Our team has completed its research on suitable building sites for a new HobCo hobby Shop in the city of Grilldon. We discovered that there are currently no hobby shops in southeastern Grilldon. When our researchers conducted a poll of area residents, 88 percent of those who responded indicated that they would welcome the opening of a hobby shop in southeastern Grilldon. Grilldon is in a region of the nation in which the hobby business has increased by 300 percent during the past decade. In addition, Grilldon has a very large population of retirees, a demographic with ample time to devote to hobbies. We therefore recommend that you choose southeastern Grilldon as the site for your next HobCo Hobby Shop. We predict that a shop in this area will draw a steady stream of enthusiastic new HobCo customers." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. RESPONSE The memo displays stark logical fallacies in its route to deduction of the city of Grilldon drawing a steady business for HobCo Hobby Shop in its southeastern region. The memo bases its conclusion largely on three statistical findings - a survey claiming 88% welcoming the idea of a hobby shop, a 300% rise in hobby business over the last decade and the city having a very large population of retirees. These reasons seem compelling at first, but on deeper insight fall short in answering certain critical questions. The first air of doubt is risen by the survey which claims an 88% positive response to the welcoming of a hobby shop in southeastern Grilldon. The sample size of this survey is questionable and the author of the memo must be more clear whether a varied range of people from the area were covered in the survey or not. It could happen that only the much younger generation or only the much older generation are welcoming such an idea. The survey also doesn’t affirmatively shed light on the intention of “buying” the services of the hobby business. This thought is supported by the use of a weak phrase such as “welcoming the opening of a hobby shop”, which clearly does not add much weight to the business potential. A 300% rise in the hobby business seems like a tempting proposition. But on scrutinizing the fact, this statistic is presented for the city of Grilldon as a whole. It doesn’t justify as to why the southeastern part of Grilldon might be ready for hobby services. The volume by which the business has grown is in itself questionable. Considering that the southeastern part of the city has had no hobby shops before this time, it is very probable that the growth is business can be attributed to a much restricted region where the people are much more excited about the idea of using services from a hobby business. The third fact on which the decision is based, is that Grilldon has a large population of retirees who have ample time to devote to hobbies. This statistic again falls short, just like the previous one, because it addresses the city as a whole. Population of retires can very well be restricted to certain other parts of the city as well. The memo doesn’t provide any compelling reason that southeastern part of the city will be a tempting destination for the retirees to engage in hobbies. They might already be living closer to hobby shops in other regions of the city. Evidently, the memo shows a paucity of substantial objective metrics. It is plagued by statistical fallacies which, if not addressed, the recommendation might fall short of expectations.

Hi, hoping if somebody could review my response to an issue task. Thank you! PROMPT The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. RESPONSE The statement takes a rather extremist stance on solving the environmental problems by imposing a strict limit on the amount of trash per household. While the intentions come across as noble, its practice will most likely do more harm than good. The damage sustained by the environment cannot be solely attributed to the household wastes. There are a myriad number of other factors from the industrial age we live in. Chemicals ejected from manufacturing industries are dumped irresponsibly into both air and water. Greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles are a major contributor to Global Warming. From a recent scandal, Volkswagen, a major car manufacturing brand, was caught lying in their engine efficiency tests. This elicits a stringent policy check on the enterprises. The right “strict limit” on the amount of trash a household can generate, is subject to debate. A household which has six members as compared to a household which has three members is bound to generate more waste. And for that matter, the waste generated cannot be objectively measured because it comes can come in a variety of forms, right from tangible food waste to bad quality air. Enforcing a law with no objective measure is bound to face flak from the populace. Even if this statement is put into practice, it will add a copious amount of burden on the administration. Keeping each an every household in check will be a tedious task in itself. This might as well turn out to be counter-productive because most of the time the law enforcement authorities will just be struggling to maintain records. Conclusively, mitigating the environmental crisis requires a more holistic approach than a one-fits-all solution described in the statement. Such parochial approach to mitigating the environmental crisis is deemed to fail.

I think the first paragraph is kind of unnecessary because it is a copy of the question at hand. You'd rather be better off declaring your stance on the matter than restating the question.