39.       
　　The conclusion in this Avia Airlines memorandum¹ is that a review of the airline's baggage-handling procedures will not further its goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia passengers. The author's line of reasoning is that the great majority of Avia passengers are happy with baggage handling at the airline because only one percent of passengers who traveled on Avia last year filed a complaint about Avia's procedures. This argument is problematic in two important respects.

      First, the argument turns on the assumption that the 99 percent of Avia passengers who did not complain were happy with the airline's baggage-handling procedures. However, the author provides no evidence to support this assumption. The fact that, on the average, 9 out of 1000 passengers took the time and effort to formally complain indicates nothing about the experiences or attitudes of the remaining 991. It is possible that many passengers were displeased² but too busy to formally complain, while others had no opinion at all. Lacking more complete information about passengers' attitudes, we cannot assume that the great majority of passengers who did not complain were happy.

      Secondly³, in the absence of information about the number of passengers per flight and about the complaint records of competing airlines, the statistics presented in the memorandum might distort the seriousness of the problem. Given that most modern aircraft carry as many as 300 to 500 passengers, it is possible that Avia received as many as 4 or 5 complaints per flight. The author unfairly trivializes this record. Moreover, the author fails to compare Avia's record with those of its competitors. It is possible that a particular competitor received virtually no baggage-handling complaints last year. If so, Avia's one percent complaint rate might be significant enough to motivate customers to switch to another airline.

      In conclusion, the author has failed to demonstrate that a review of the baggage-handling procedures at Avia Airlines is not needed to maintain or increase the number of Avia's passengers. To strengthen the argument, the author must at the very least provide affirmative evidence that most Avia passengers last year were indeed happy with baggage-handling procedures. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the numbers of Avia passengers per flight last year and about the baggage-handling records of Avia's competitors.

40.      
　　 The author of this article argues that the country of Sacchar can best solve its current trade deficit⁴ problem by lowering the price of its main export, sugar. The line of reasoning is that this action would make Sacchar more competitive with other sugar-exporting countries, thereby⁵ increasing sales of Sacchar's sugar abroad and, in turn, substantially reducing the trade-deficit. This line of reasoning is unconvincing for a couple of reasons.

      In the first place, this argument is based on an oversimplified analysis of the trade deficit problem Sacchar currently faces. A trade-deficit occurs when a country spends more on imports than it earns from exports. The author's argument relies on the assumption that earnings⁶ from imports will remain constant. However, the author provides no evidence that substantiates⁷ this assumption. It is possible that revenues from imports will increase dramatically in the near future; if so, the course of action proposed by the author might be unnecessary to solve Sacchar's trade deficit problem. Conversely, it is possible that revenues from imports are likely to decrease dramatically in the near future. To the extent that this is the case, lowering sugar prices may have a negligible countervailing effect, depending on the demand for Sacchar's sugar.

      In the second place, increasing sales by lowering the price of sugar will not yield an increase in income unless the increase in sales is sufficient to overcome the loss in income due to the lower price. This raises three questions the author fails to address. First, will a price decrease in fact stimulate⁸ demand? Second, is demand sufficient to meet the increase in supply? Third, can Sacchar increase the sugar production sufficiently⁹ to overcome the deficit? In the absence of answers to these questions, we cannot assess the author's proposal.

      In conclusion, the author provides an incomplete analysis of the problem and, as a result, provides a questionable¹⁰ solution. To better evaluate the proposal, we would need to know how revenues from imports are likely to change in the future. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide evidence that demand is sufficient to meet the proposed increase in supply, and that Sacchar has sufficient resources to accommodate the increase.