We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about 10 percent of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments.

Argument: 

We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about 10 percent of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments.  In order to help our clients increase their net gains, we should advise each of them to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors.  Such a recommendation could also help us get the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of our methods. 

Answer:

The argument that Windfall Ltd., should advice their clients to review invoices so that more profits will be generated omits some important concerns that must be addressed in order to assess the validity of this argument. 

Most importantly, the author bases his conclusion on the example of Windfall Ltd.  The argument presents a premise that Windfall found out 10% of their invoices had errors that led Windfall to pay additional payments of $10,000.  However, it is doubtful that other companies, including Windfall's accounts, find as much overpayment as Windfall did because most companies have systems to check invoices very carefully.  Rather, some companies could even find out they have paid less than their invoices.  Double-checking of invoices does not assure more profits. 

Another issue ignored by the argument is statistical condition.  Although the author checked 10 percent of invoices at Windfall, there is no clear indication whether it is 10% out of 10 invoices or 100 invoices.  10% of 10 invoices is just one that might have as a big miscalculation as $10,000.  If there is one invoice contains an error, it could be just a mistake.  On contrast, double check will be needed if there are 10% of 100 invoices found out with wrong figures because errors are repeatedly happened.  The author must show clear explanations to make the argument more convincing. 

Finally, the argument does not take disadvantages of double-checking of invoices into account.  Drawing out invoices and re-check all of them take a long time that makes other operations slower and, as a result, more employees would be hired.  Slower process irritates clients and eventually taken away.  The more staffs a company gets hired, the more salaries, of course, have to be paid, which eat up profits.  Lack of explanation about demerits lessens credibility of the argument. 

In conclusion, the argument is not enough convincing in its current form.  In order to better evaluate the author's claim, more information would be needed.  To begin with, the author must evaluate some examples in other companies about accuracy of invoices.  Furthermore, it must be shown under what conditions Windfall checked their invoices.  Finally, the argument must consider disadvantages caused by double-checking such as slower operation and more costs.  Before any conclusion is maid, every possible aspect must be considered.