Analysis of Argument:

The following appeared in a proposal for a high school's annual fundraising event:

"In order to earn the most money for supplemental school programs, we will have larger and more thrilling rides at this year's School Fair, including a ferris wheel that is twice as tall as last year's ferris wheel. In addition, the game vendors will award more expensive prizes and the food stalls will showcase a variety of upscale international dishes. As a result, we will be able to charge a higher entrance fee and the dollar amount we earn via our commission on the vendors' revenues will be higher than it was last year."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.

YOUR RESPONSE:
According to proposal, thrilling rides and expensive prizes and food at this year's school Fair would generate the most money for supplemental School programs. Despite the impressive statistics, the proposal has high probability for failure because of various assumptions and flaws.

The author of the proposal assumes that larger and more thrilling rides are much in demand, and will exite the general masses, generation larger revenue than the currently done. The factors like cost of investement for construction, the general demand of the customers, and maximum Profit ratio are completely ignored. For example, the investment for construction of larger and more thrilling rides may prove to be more high and therefore doesn't accord with the revenue generated. The profit in such scenario may go down and the intent of proposal aka, to maximize the moeny for supplemental School programs, may failed badly. The author also assumes that there would be no reduction in masses for increase in price of the rides. For example, there may be a case in which the high price of larger rides make the ride unaffordable, and decrease in minimal people per ride would also lead to several losses.
On the same lines, the author considers more expensive prizes and food stalls showcasing variety of upscale international dishes would generate more profit than the current.

Such investment without any statistics for people willingness for large crowd for large rides, variety of food, and expensive prizes is highly unjustified. Conveying the survey to verify the probability of large profits for such investment could have supported the proposal. The profit should be the main priority and every investement must be based on that priority. The threshold profit for any increase in Investement should be calculated and the proposal should recommend the idea attracting maximum profit.

Overall, because of such major assumtions, the proposal is highly risky and have major chances of failure than the already tested one. The author of the proposal has also not done suffucient reaserch to check the vailability of the proposal and hence should be rejected.