There are about 500 words in this article, and I really puzzled how to refine it as there is only 30 minutes provided to finish the argument.
Seeking for help~3Q <(^~^)>
In this letter the author points out that the region of northeastern U.S experienced 90 days' below-average temperatures last year. The author also cites the prediction made by climate forecasters at Waymarsh University that the weather pattern will last for several more years. The author reasons that the developments of new homes built in the region will lead to an increased demand for heating oil. On the basis of this line of reasoning the author recommends investment in Consolidated Industries. However, this argument contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.
A threshold problem with the argument involves specific condition of the weather of the region. The author provides no evidence about how was the weather condition in the past. It is probable that cold winters in the past usually lasted longer than 90 days. And if it is the case, last winter might be a bit warmer than former ones, consequently, the utility of heating oil might decline to some extent rather than getting increased. What's more, we need to know the concrete temperature, if it is below, however, close to zero degree, then the evidence really makes no sense in verifying the increased demand for heating oil.
The argument also lends little evidence to prove the authority and accuracy of the prediction made by Waymarsh University that the weather pattern will continue for several more years. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the prediction was based on inaccurate observation or their research time is insufficient enough to bring them about correct result.
Even if the prediction is substantiated, the author's claim that demand for heating oil will increase because of the new houses built in the region during the past year is unjustified. Perhaps there are few people preparing to move to the new houses due to the poor quality, or the expensive cost. Even if lots of people choose to live there, the author fails to provide us with convictive evidence that new residents there will exploit heating oil.
Finally, even if the author can support all of the foregoing assumptions, the author's recommendation that Consolidated Industries should be invested in is still unwarranted, in the respect that the author ignores other possible factors which will equally affect the profit of the company, such as the cost of purchasing heating oil, the long-term prospection, as well as the fierce market competition.
In a nutshell, the author's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting his argument. To persuade me that the demand for heating oil will increase and it is necessary to invest in the CI company, the author would need to provide clear evidence that new inhabitants moving to the new houses will continue using heating oil, and that none of other factors affect the company's profits. Finally, to better evaluate the author's claim we would need more information about how long did below-average temperatures last in the past and what's the specific temperatures during the 90 days, as well as whether the prediction is based on reliable research by the university.