The following appeared in a memorandum to the planning department of an investment firm:"Costs have begun dropping for several types of equipment currently used to convert solar energy into electricity. Moreover, some exciting new technologies for convert

The argument here states that the planning department of an investment firm should invest on Solario, a new manufacturer of solar-powered products. This argument fails to maintain several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To satisfy this conclusion, the author’s reasons that solar energy will soon become the most cost-effective and attractive than coal or oil as a source of electrical power. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provides little justification to the author’s conclusion. Hence, the argument is considered incomplete or unsubstantiated. First of all, the argument readily assumes that Costs have begun dropping for several types of equipment currently used to convert solar energy into electricity. This is merely and the assumption made without much solid ground. The argument does not mention the detail about the dropping rate. There can be a possibility that the cost of converting equipment is initially very high and still by dropping; its cost is higher than other electrical power. There is also a possibility that the cost is dropping only of low quality and brand equipment. However, the argument would have been better if it explicitly stated about dropping and recent cost of the solar-electricity converting equipment. Secondly, the author argues here that some exciting new technologies for converting solar energy are now being researched and developed. This again is a weak analogy used by the argument and it does not demonstrate the clear correlation between development and research of new converting technologies and security of an investment. For instance, in many cases, it is found that many companies are pretending to lunch a new product to attract only a huge investment. The argument fails to explain the reliability and the rank of the company. It also fails to explain what sort of new technologies are under research and how those technologies will grow the profit of an investment. Moreover, argument state that solar energy will soon become the most cost-effective and attractive than coal or oil as a source of electrical power. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provides little support for the author’s statement in various critical aspects and raises skeptical questions. For example, what is the trend of the market of Solario’s product? Is the market solar-electricity converting equipment growing in recent years? Are there any interest groups who are seeking for a commission by making an investment on Solario? What will be the estimated payback period? Without the convincing answer to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the author’s argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide clear and more concrete information about the dropping rate of solar- electricity converting equipment and the comparison chart of the cost of this equipment to other technologies. The reliability of Solario and information about under developing technologies will help to strengthen the argument. The argument should also provide detail economic analysis to show strongly that why they have to invest in Solario.