The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site.

“Of the two leading real estate firms in our town – Adams Realty and Fitch Realty – Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams’ revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch’s $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: Ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams.”

In this argument, the author recommends us to use Adams, one of the two leading real estate firms in his town. As per him, Adams is much better than Fitch Realty, the other leading real estate firm in the town. He has supported his argument by comparing some aspects of the two firms to convince us like Adams Realty has more real estate agents, more revenue, and it is more efficient in selling houses than Fitch on the basis of his own experience ten years ago. However, this argument seems specious on several grounds.

In the first place, the author’s assumption that having more agents means good service is unconvincing. According to him, Adams’ service is better than Fitch’s because it has 40 real estate agents while Fitch has only 25. However, he has nowhere mentioned the qualifications of agents in the two firms. It might be that the agents in Fitch are more qualified, trained, and experienced. Hence, it does not require more agents and the agents do not need to work full time. Anyways, the quality of the service cannot be related to only a factor of the number of employees. There are many other things that should be taken into consideration, such as social reputation of the company, the feedbacks of customers and the company’s work culture to avoid making the assertion too unwarranted.

The second point that the author has raised is that Adams’ revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch. This data is not very clear. The author has not mentioned the service charges of the two companies. There is a possibility of Adam’s charges being much more than those of Fitch’s. It might be the adequate reason for the gap in revenue of both the firms. There is also another possibility that Adams sells only high priced houses or some particular type of houses, which brings more income. Hence, the argument cannot be concluded without all this information.

Lastly, the author cites that Fitch sells homes slower than Adams does. He has given a ten years old example of his own experience. According to the arguer’s narrative, he entrusted his home to Fitch ten years ago and it took four months to sell his house. While when he registered his another house with Adams, it sold his house in one month. However, the author has not mentioned the location, condition, area, material used and size of the two houses. There is a high possibility that the new house was easier to sell because of its good location or good condition. Moreover, during a long span of ten years, the situation varies significantly in many aspects, for instance, the changes in the real estate domain, the changes of the society that lead to the differences in the demand of houses and the inflation. Under this circumstance, Adams’ success, however, is merely ordinary. The author has concluded the argument too hastily without considering all these possibilities.

Hence, the argument seems very unconvincing. The evidence produced by the author to assess the two real estate firms like only the number of agents and the revenue is not sufficient. The author should have considered many other factors such as the efficiency of employees, their familiarities to the real estate market etc.