The following appeared in a memorandum from a regional supervisor of post office operations:
“During a two-week study of postal operations, the Presto City post office handled about twice as many items as the Lento City post office, even though the cities are about the same size. Moreover, customer satisfaction appears to be higher in Presto City, since the study found fewer complaints regarding the Presto City post office. Therefore, the postmasters at these two offices should exchange assignments: the Presto City postmaster will solve the problems of inefficiency and customer dissatisfaction at the Lento City office while the Lento City postmaster learns firsthand the superior methods of Presto City.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument by a regional supervisor of post office operations is logical but not necessarily sound. The mere fact that the Presto City post office handles twice as many items as the Lento City post office does not indicate that it performs better. The Lento City post office may have more complaints, but this does not mean that it is inefficient. Another method of determining efficiency would be to compare time-to-delivery between the two locations. If the time it takes the Lento City post office to process and deliver mail is longer than that of the Presto City post office, then the argument is not sound. Further, the assumption that the Presto City post office handles twice as many items might not be true. The Presto City post office may have more volume, but the volume of mail in Lento City may not be twice that of the Presto City post office. Therefore, comparing the volumes of mail between the two offices does not provide a solid basis for recommending that the post offices swap locations
The argument assumes that the Presto City post office handles twice as many items as the Lento City post office. The memo does not mention how many items are processed by each post office per week. The Lento City post office may have processed an average of 1000 items per day and the Presto City post office an average of 2000 items. Assuming that the Presto City post office handles twice as many items as the Lento City post office, then the volume of mail is doubled. However, if the Presto City post office handles 50% more items than the Lento City post office, the volume of mail is not doubled. Therefore, the argument assumes that the volume of mail is the same between the two post offices, an assumption that is questionable. The volume of mail might be higher at Lento City because of an increase in traffic or an increase in deliveries of parcels, which require more handling. The volume of mail might be higher at Presto City because Lento City residents are more likely to make purchases online, resulting in more packages being shipped. If the volume of mail is higher in Lento City, then the argument is not sound
The memo assumes that the Presto City post office has fewer complaints than the Lento City post office. The memo is silent on the number of complaints that the post office receives, but to assume that the Presto City post office has fewer complaints than the Lento City post office requires the assumption that Lento City residents do not complain. If Lento City residents receive more complaints than the Presto City post office, then the memo is not sound. Further, if the Presto City post office receives more complaints than the Lento City post office, then this argument is not sound because the volume of mail is not the same between the two post offices
The conclusion in the memo states that Presto City postmasters should be assigned to solve the inefficiencies of Lento City post office. The memo does not explain what the inefficiencies consist of, nor is there evidence that their assignment will remedy them. Therefore, the conclusion is unsound. The Presto City post office might be more efficient, but assigning the Presto City post office to Lento City would not guarantee that the Lento City post office would become more efficient
The conclusion in the memo assumes that the Presto City post office has fewer complaints than the Lento City post office and that Lento City residents do not complain. Both assumptions are questionable. The Presto City post office may be more efficient, but the volume of mail that Lento City residents receive is not twice as large as the volume of mail that Presto City residents receive. Therefore, the conclusion that Lento City residents do not complain is not sound. Further, the Lento City post office may have more complaints than the Presto City post office, or the volume of mail that Lento City residents receive may be twice as large as the volume of mail that Presto City residents receive. The memo offers no evidence to support either assumption
The conclusion in the memo is unsound. The memo does not provide enough information to determine that the volume of mail is the same, that the volume of mail is higher at Lento City, or that Lento City residents do not complain. The memo also does not explain why Presto City postmasters should have to solve the problems of Lento City post office.