The following is a memorandum from the director of personnel to the president of Get-Away Airlines.

“Since our mechanics are responsible for inspecting and maintaining our aircraft, Get-Away Airlines should pay to send them to the Quality-Care Seminar, a two-week seminar on proper maintenance procedures. I recommend this seminar because it is likely to be a wise investment, given that the automobile racing industry recently reported that the performance of its maintenance crews improved markedly after their crews had attended the seminar. These maintenance crews perform many of the same functions as do our mechanics, including refueling and repairing engines. The money we spend on sending our staff to the seminar will inevitably lead to improved maintenance and thus to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for our airline.”

The director of personnel of Get-Away Airlines utilizes this memorandum to recommend that the maintenance mechanics of the company should be sent for attending the Quality-Care Seminar. The director asserts that the investment made in training the mechanics would lead to better maintenance, customer satisfaction and higher profits for the company. The director cites the example of the maintenance crew of the automobile racing company who displayed a marked improvement in their performance after attending the same seminar. However, the director in unable to present reliable evidence that can make the argument and the recommendation made therein sound convincing enough.

Firstly, the arguer unfairly draws an analogy between the maintenance mechanics of the automobile industry and those of Get-Away Airlines. It is a well-known fact that there is a vast difference in the procedure involved in the maintenance of aircrafts and racing automobiles. It is likely that the curriculum of the Quality-care Seminar is such that it caters to the requirements of the automobile industry more than to the needs of the aviation industry. Moreover, there is a possibility that the maintenance crew of Get-Away Airlines is much better professionally than the maintenance crew of the automobile industry and so attending the seminar may not be able to contribute much towards their competence in maintenance of aircrafts. Therefore, the assumption that the maintenance crew of Get-Away Airlines will also benefit from the seminar just like their counterparts in the automobile industry did is fallacious and highly unconvincing.

Secondly, it is difficult to be convinced that the performance of the maintenance crew of the automobile racing industry has improved solely because of attending the seminar. The arguer needs to rule out the possibility that the automobile racing companies have now increased the standards that have to be met by the maintenance crew and so the crew has started putting in their best for fear of losing their jobs. Moreover, it is likely that these companies conducted in-house training sessions that contributed to the improvement in the performance of the maintenance crew. Therefore, the marked improvement in their performance cannot be attributed solely to attending the Quality-Care Seminar.

Thirdly, the arguer has unfairly conceded that better maintenance would lead to customer satisfaction and higher profits for the company. Customer satisfaction would depend on various other factors like hospitality and efficiency demonstrated by the staff of Get-Away Airlines. The customers of an airline company are unlikely to be aware of the improvement in maintenance of the aircraft unless there are flight delays due to technical snags or frequent accidents. As the argument makes no mention of such events taking place in the past, it is unlikely that the improvement in performance of the maintenance crew would have any effect on either customer satisfaction or profits of the company. On the other hand, the company may have to face losses if there is no improvement in the performance of the maintenance crew even after the company has invested in registering them for the Quality-Care Seminar.

The arguer needs to provide concrete evidence in support of the analogy that has been drawn between the maintenance crew of the automobile industry and the maintenance of Get-Away Airlines. Moreover, there is a requirement of ruling out possibilities other than attending the Quality-Care Seminar, which may have resulted in better performance being displayed by the maintenance crew of the automobile racing industry. In view of the above, it is evident that despite the evidence provided by the arguer, there are several flaws in the argument that question the soundness of the recommendation that has been made.