The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of a company that specializes in the delivery of heating oil.
“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 can safely predict that this region will experience an increased demand for heating oil during the next five years.”
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 speaker states that ‘most homes’ in the northeastern United States ‘have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating’, and that ‘last heating season’ experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures. Furthermore, ‘climate forecasters predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years.’ This statement is confusing, as the phrase ‘most homes’ is redundant to the statement ‘where winters are typically cold’, and the use of the phrase ‘last heating season’ is unclear. Furthermore, the statement also leaves out the fact that ‘many new homes’ have been built in the region, which could imply that ‘we can safely predict that this region will experience an increased demand for heating oil’. Given that heating oil is an oil-based fuel that is derived from crude oil, it can be assumed that any such newly built homes will utilize this fuel for heating purposes. However, the statement leaves out the fact that many current homeowners in the region have switched to oil-fired heating systems. So, it could be said that homes in the region are currently using heating oil in greater numbers than they have in the past. Therefore, it could be inferred that the region will experience an increased demand for heating oil in the next five years, but not necessarily because ‘most homes’ have become ‘new’.
In addition to ‘most homes’ being redundant, the use of the phrase ‘last heating season’ is also confusing, as this term is redundant to the statement ‘where winters are typically cold.’ Furthermore, the use of the word ‘last’ is also unclear. If the writer wished to imply that the region experienced this cold weather this past season, then ‘last heating season’ would be redundant to the statement ‘last heating season, the region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures.’ Thus, it would be unnecessary to use the word ‘last’ in the statement, as ‘last’ would merely serve to draw attention to the fact that the region experienced unusual low temperatures this past heating season, rather than the last time that it did so.
Finally, the statement ‘.
.
this region will experience an increased demand for heating oil during the next five years’ implies that the current market demand for heating oil in the northeastern United States has risen in the past five seasons. However, this statement is confusing, as it implies that the current demand for heating oil has risen significantly over the past five years, which is unlikely given the significant fluctuations in the price of oil over the past few years. It could also be inferred that the current demand for heating oil has not risen significantly in the past five years, but has remained consistent, and that therefore the demand for heating oil in the northeastern United States will likely remain consistent over the next five years.
As can be seen, the use of vague, redundant, and confusing language in an argument can weaken the strength of an argument. Thus, when making an argument, great care should be taken to ensure that language used in an argument is precise and free of ambiguity.