“Costs have begun dropping for several types of equipment currently used to convert solar energy into electricity. Moreover, some exciting new technologies for converting solar energy are now being researched and developed. Hence we can expect that solar energy will soon become more cost efficient and attractive than coal or oil as a source of electrical power. We should, therefore, encourage investment in Solario, a new manufacturer of solar-powered products. After all, Solario’s chief executive was once on the financial planning team for Ready-to-Ware, a software engineering firm that has shown remarkable growth since its recent incorporation.”
----------------
Author concludes that investment in new manufacturer of solar-powered products, Solario should be encouraged. The line of reasoning is based on the reasoning that Solario would be managed by a successful firm's financial planner and that solar energy would be cost effective in comparison to that of coal and oil as sources of electrical power. Speaker assumes that a financial planner in a successful firm guarantees success of any new company and also that research and development in solar energy will definitely lead to cost effective products. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
Firstly, author statement that Solario will be managed by a financial planner of a successful software engineering firm, Ready-to-ware, guarantees success of Solario isn't convincing. There is no information in the argument citing that this financial planner was the main man behind company's success. Also, software engineering firm and solar energy firms have very less similarities and thus it would be improper to assume that a person who's brought success in one field will bring success in the other field.
Secondly, author states that research and development of technologies for converting solar energy is still going on, it is difficult to assume that they will lead to cost effective products in the end. Research might fail or development might end in efficient products but not cost effective.Therefore, it will unwise to assume that a cost-efficient technology will be designed at the end
In addition, author states that Solario is new into the field of manufacturing solar-powered products. So, it is difficult to bet that the investment on Solario will be a success as Solario lacks prior experience in this field. If Solario had prior experience, it will prove helpful to better judge the company's success.
Furthermore, only coal and oil are used as comparison with solar energy in comparing the cost-effectiveness. What if other sources energy like wind energy, hydal energy are even more better than these . There is no information to oppose this.
In order to make the argument more persuasive, more information should've been provided about the capabilities of financial planner, a study should have been conducted about the cost effectiveness of other sources of energy and costs involved in research and development of new technologies.
In whole, the argument makes assumptions without proper reasoning and lacks thorough study that is needed to conclude that solar-powered products are cost effective.The argument looks less persuasive to conclude that investment in Solario is a better choice.
----------------
Author concludes that investment in new manufacturer of solar-powered products, Solario should be encouraged. The line of reasoning is based on the reasoning that Solario would be managed by a successful firm's financial planner and that solar energy would be cost effective in comparison to that of coal and oil as sources of electrical power. Speaker assumes that a financial planner in a successful firm guarantees success of any new company and also that research and development in solar energy will definitely lead to cost effective products. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
Firstly, author statement that Solario will be managed by a financial planner of a successful software engineering firm, Ready-to-ware, guarantees success of Solario isn't convincing. There is no information in the argument citing that this financial planner was the main man behind company's success. Also, software engineering firm and solar energy firms have very less similarities and thus it would be improper to assume that a person who's brought success in one field will bring success in the other field.
Secondly, author states that research and development of technologies for converting solar energy is still going on, it is difficult to assume that they will lead to cost effective products in the end. Research might fail or development might end in efficient products but not cost effective.Therefore, it will unwise to assume that a cost-efficient technology will be designed at the end
In addition, author states that Solario is new into the field of manufacturing solar-powered products. So, it is difficult to bet that the investment on Solario will be a success as Solario lacks prior experience in this field. If Solario had prior experience, it will prove helpful to better judge the company's success.
Furthermore, only coal and oil are used as comparison with solar energy in comparing the cost-effectiveness. What if other sources energy like wind energy, hydal energy are even more better than these . There is no information to oppose this.
In order to make the argument more persuasive, more information should've been provided about the capabilities of financial planner, a study should have been conducted about the cost effectiveness of other sources of energy and costs involved in research and development of new technologies.
In whole, the argument makes assumptions without proper reasoning and lacks thorough study that is needed to conclude that solar-powered products are cost effective.The argument looks less persuasive to conclude that investment in Solario is a better choice.
