In the following excerpt, a writer tries to persuade this supervisor to respond to a government request for proposals (rfp) to build an unmanned surveillance plane for the military. which aspects of the paragraph undercut the effectiveness of the passage?

i think we are making a serious mistake by not responding. if we don't respond to this proposal, we will lose our competitive edge. at a conference last month, for example, i spoke to a couple of people who said the market for unmanned surveillance aircraft will grow exponentially during the next 10 years. can we talk about this more at next week's planning meeting?

Explanation:

The writer poses only two alternatives when in fact there might be more alternatives.

These two are :

1. "If we don't respond to this proposal, we will lose our competitive edge".

2. "I spoke to a couple of people who said the market for unmanned surveillance aircraft will grow exponentially during the next 10 years."

It also tries to draw conclusions based on inadequate samples.

It states that the claim is valid since the person making the claim is a government authority.

this question does't support enough resioning to answer.

i would think yes.

explanation:

because we have every natianlity in our country which makes us so diverse and unique. that's why in a lot of cities there are places like little italy, koreatown, chinatown.