In this argument， the arguer recommends us to use Adams， one of the two leading real estate firms in our town， to sell our homes if you want to instead of Fitch， the other leading one. To justify his conclusion， the arguer provides the clear evidence that Adams has 40 real estate agents in contrast to the number 25 of Fitch， and even many of which are only part-time. In addition， he cited the fresh statistics of revenues of both Adams and Fitch， which respectively are $168，000 and $144，000. To make it more conceivable， the arguer even lists out a self-experienced case to exhibit the superior sell speed of Adams to Fitch. Although all the evidences above seem reasonable， a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.
In the first place， the arguer unfairly assumes Adams' service is better than Fitch's with the assumption that more agents， more satisfaction. The 40 agents in Adams might be poorly trained and unqualified with an extremely low work efficiency， thus enlarging the number of the agents is the only feasible compensation. While Fitch's 25 agents may be well trained and be rich in experience， although many of them work only part-time， under the present work condition it is enough. And also the quality of the service can't be oversimplified to only a factor of the number of employees， which， in our common sense， has no necessary correlation. It is some other things should be taken into consideration， such as social reputation， the feedbacks of customers and the company's culture and spiritual， to avoid making the assertion too unwarranted.
In the second place， the statistics offered by the arguer can't elucidate anything. It seems true that Adams' achievement is greater than Fitch's through the comparison of revenues， but the data itself is too vague to be informative. Taking into account the service charge， which can't be omitted in this case， we absolutely have adequate reasons to doubt the charge from Adams is far larger than Fitch， which eventually leads to such a gap. Another possibility of the result is contributing to the types of house they are entrusted to sell， since no evidence showed that Adams can afford to sell the lower-price estates while Fitch can assume the opposite ones， thus the phenomenon arises.
Last but not least， in short of legitimacy is that Fitch really sells homes slower than Adams does. According to the arguer's narrative， he entrusted his home to Fitch ten years ago when the balance of offer-request heavily outweighed the left side and Fitch selling it in more than four months is nothing but a miracle. Adams， instead， sold his another home in one month last year during which the request for house might be booming as a result of influx of the foreign immigrants. Under this circumstance， Adams' success， however， is merely ordinary. Besides， the two houses sold out no doubt have natural differences， which tightly related to the smooth process of selling， such as location， structure， areas， and materials. The arguer thus makes so hasty a generalization regardless of these crucial points.
As it stands， the argument is not well reasoned in lack of some indispensable evidence. To make it logically acceptable， the arguer would demonstrate that the superior quality of Adams' agents and the relatively lower charge comparable to Fitch's. Additionally， more details should be evinced， concerning the actual estate situation in those periods of time and fundamental instructions of the two sold houses， to rule out the above-mentioned possibilities. （587 words）