The argument concludes that Happy Pancake House restaurants should replace butter with margarine in all its branches in the United States to save cost. This is based on the successful result of the same change that was done in the southwestern United States. However, the argument's conclusion is based on several assumptions and logical floaws, and thus is unconvincing.
The author relies on insufficient data about customers' feedback. While he mentions that only 2 percent of the total customers' raise a complain, that does not mean that the rest of the 98 percent are satisfied customers with the change. There is a possibility that these customers recognize the change ,which they do not like, but they did not reported it. Had the author supported his data with comparison of customers' number before and after the change, then the argument would be strengthened.
The author concludes that customers who ask for butter do not recognize butter from margarine, but, the fact that they accepted to have margarine instead of better does not necessarily means that they do not feel the differences nor that they like it. Some customers might accept the change because they do not have other choices. For example, the restaurant could be the nearest to their home or have a convenient price according to their budget. Had the author included results of questionnaire to customers about the change, then the argument would be much stronger.
n conclusion, the author's argument ,that replacing butter with margarine in United States is cost effective, is flawed.
trying to write above the avarage