Answer:
The argument claims that one foreign motorcycle, which has copied the motorcycle X, has failed to attract the motorcycle X customers unlike foreign cars which sell in good numbers in spite of having lower noise than its American made counterparts. Hence, the lack of noise is not the reason for the poor response of foreign motorcycle. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that lack of the exceptionally loud noise in motorcycle X is not the reason for the poor customer response to foreign motorcycle. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For instance, many foreign e-commerce players who copied the website design of American e-commerce players, were wiped out of market as they couldn't provide the service quality in addition to website experience. Another example is paralleled customer response to foreign cars the argument mentions. The author fails to clarify whether the customers of foreign cars consider the noise as a deciding factor for purchase. The customers of foreign cars might be taking in to account other factors such as after sales service before purchasing them. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly gave examples of other foreign motorcycles, which have fared well in spite of the lack of loud noise.
Second, the argument claims that the television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines instead of exceptional loud noise. It thus suggests that this is yet another reason for customer's lack of importance to loud noise. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between television advertisement's content and customer's purchase decision factors. The argument does not even draw a parallel with the mentioned foreign car television advertisement and its content. In addition, if the argument provided evidence that the features mentioned in television advertisements lead to dominate customer's purchase decision intentions then the argument would have been lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that they must be another explanation for the lower customer response towards motorcycle X. From this statement, it is not clear how there can be another explanation for the lower customer response to foreign motorcycle. Without supporting evidence and examples of alternate explanation, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and if therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the argument presents a false analogy of foreign motorcycle response to foreign cars response and does not present the correlation of the content of television advertisements to the customer's purchasing intentions. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
