69.      
　　 Based upon sales reports over a three-month period that indicate an increase in profits for stores that sell products for the home and a decrease in profits for clothing stores, the business manager of a department store concludes that consumers are choosing to purchase home furnishings rather than clothing. On the basis of this conclusion, the manager recommends a reduction in the size of the clothing department and an increase in the size of the home-furnishings department. This recommendation is problematic in two critical respects.

      In the first place the author's conclusion that consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing is based upon too small a sample. Data gathered from a three-month period is insufficient¹ to establish the conclusion drawn² from it. It is quite possible that the three-month period chosen is idiosyncratic and not representative of entire year's sales. If so, reducing the size of the clothing departments and enlarging the home-furnishings departments may be a costly³ mistake.

      In the second place, the data collected during the three month period may be biased⁴. The fact that the data reflects sales in local stores is cause for concern. It is possible that the sales trend in a particular location is not representative of sales in other regions. For example, sales of clothing in Florida during the winter months are likely to be quite different from sales of clothing in Alaska during the same period.

      In conclusion, this argument is not persuasive⁵ as it stands. A more convincing argument must provide additional sales data, collected at different periods of the year and at different locations, that substantiates⁶ the trend in question.

70.
　　The author of this editorial asserts that trespassing⁷, vandalism, and theft associated with stealing fruit from farms is a trivial problem and, as a result, enacting⁸ laws to protect farm- and land-owners from these crimes is a waste of lawmakers' time. In support of this claim, the author points out only that the nation's cities are plagued by far more serious problems of violence and crime. To the extent that this author has provided any argument at all, it is a poor one.

      First of all, the author unfairly assumes that if lawmakers are taking rural crime issues seriously, then they cannot be taking urban crime issues seriously. The author is presenting a false dilemma⁹ by imposing¹⁰ an either-or choice between two courses of action that need not be mutually exclusive. It is equally possible that legislators can address both areas of concern concurrently¹¹.

      Secondly¹², the argument relies on the assumption that the legislators in question have the opportunity to address urban crime problems. However, we are not told whether this legislature's jurisdiction¹³ encompasses¹⁴ both rural and urban areas. If it encompasses only rural areas, then the author's implicit¹⁵ conclusion that the legislators in this region should instead be addressing urban crime problems would be completely undermined.

      Finally, the author unfairly trivializes the severity of rural crime by simply comparing it with urban crime. While trespassing, vandalism, and fruit-stealing may seem minor¹⁶ peccadilloes¹⁷, especially compared to violent urban crimes, these rural crimes might nevertheless result in serious financial damage to farm owners, depending on the frequency and extent of the violations¹⁸. The author fails to provide evidence for the claim that these rural crimes are trivial. Instead, the author attempts to call attention to a more dramatic but potentially irrelevant¹⁹ problem.

      In conclusion, the argument is weak. It potentially distorts the alternatives available to legislators in the region, as well as deflecting²⁰ attention from the problem at hand. To better evaluate it, we would need more information about the geographical²¹ scope of this legislature's jurisdiction and about the extent of the fruit-stealing problem in the region.