he following was used as part of an internet advertising company's appeal to businesses:"Furniture Depot employed our internet advertising company

to help. Since then its sales increased by 10% over last year's totals. Furniture Depot's success demonstrates how using our internet services can increase your profitability."

Describe how well reasoned you find this argument. In the 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 argument's conclusion. You may also address possible changes in the argument that would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

This argument claims that your internet services could increase our profitability because it has increased Furniture Depot sales by 10% over its last year's total. State in this way the argument reveals examples of poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak and unconvincing. First, the argument readily assumes that Furniture Depot's increase in sales is solely attributed to your internet advertising help. This statement is a stretch because the argument fails to preclude other reasons that might cause Furniture Depot's sales to increase. For example, an increase in demand for Furniture Depot products might cause the sales of Furniture Depot's sales to increase. Another example, perhaps Furniture Depot had organized a warehouse sales event which might be the main reason for the increase in sales. This argument could have been much clearer if it had precluded other reasons which might increase Furniture Depot's sales. Second, the argument claims that Internet advertising with the help of your company increased Furniture Depot's sales. This is again is very weak. Could it be that Furniture Depot's sales has increased so much that they have extra revenue to try out Internet advertising from your company? If the argument had provided evidence that the relationship is such that Internet advertising directly increased Furniture Depot's sales, the argument would have been more convincing. Finally, there are some questions which remain to be answered. While Internet advertising increased sales for Furniture Depot, does it mean that Internet advertising would also increased sales for our company which focuses on manufacturing bolts and nuts? While Internet advertising increased sales last year, would a similar strategy work this year in the context of global internet-virus contagion and panic? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more a wishful thinking than a well-reasoned argument. In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore is unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly considered the above-mentioned questions. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and unconvincing.

"The desire of corporations to maximize profits creates conflict with the general welfare of the nation at large."

Some people that think that maximize profits creates conflicts with the general welfare of the nation at large. Others think that maximum product does not create conflict with the generation welfare of the

nation at large. The issue is a controversial one but a closer examination reveals that maximizing profits create conflicts with the welfare of the nation at large for several reasons. One reason is that maximize profits may result in practices which are conflicting with the general welfare of the nation's people and therefore the welfare of the nation at large. For example, a company in its effort to maximize profits may decide to cut down production cost to an extent whereby the people in the production lines to suffer. FoxConn is an example of a company which tried to reduce production cost to an extent whereby the working conditions become unbearable and workers go on frequent strikes. Another reason is that maximize profits often results in merger and acquisition which results monopolies which usually increases the prices of common commodities, causing people to suffer. Very often, food prices in smaller shops in Singapore increase after the smaller shops merged with NTUC, a large supermarket. Perhaps the best reason is that maximize profits often results in a small group of people to be rich while the working class remains poor. This results in grievances among the working class and could potentially lead to social riots which conflicts with the welfare of the nation. The Arab Spring was one example whereby profits are maximized and are not re-distributed to the working class which led on to resentment, protests, and bloodshed. The recent riots in London also seem to reflect an increase concern with income gap between the rich and the poor which arises as a result of companies maximizing profits. In summary, which there are arguments to be made for both sides, it is clear that maximize profits creates conflicts with the general welfare of the nation at large. Hence, I agree with the opinion stated above.