-
The Jock
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:22 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:3 members
The following appeared as part of a plan proposed by an executive of the Easy Credit Company to the president:
"The Easy Credit Company would gain an advantage over competing credit card services if we were to donate a portion of the proceeds from the use of our cards to a well-known environmental organization in exchange for the use of its symbol or logo on our card. Since a recent poll shows that a large percentage of the public is concerned about environmental issues, this policy would attract new customers, increase use among existing customers, and enable us to charge interest rates that are higher than the lowest ones available."
Environmental organizations are gaining a lot of popularity of late. Global Warming, Glacier melting and oil spills in oceans are deteriorating our environment. We need some organizations to work for the betterment of our environment. There are those who think that environmental organizations are here for looking after the environmental issues and then there are those who want to use the popularity of environmental organization as a revenue generating vehicle.
In the preceding statement, author claims that The Easy Credit Company would gain an advantage over competing credit card services if Easy Credit Company donates a portion of the proceeds from the use of its credit cards to well-known environmental organization in exchange for the use of environmental organization symbol or logo on Easy Credit Company's Card. Though his claims may well have merits, author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions and based solely on evidence (Survey) the author offers; we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author makes an assumption that environmental organization will be willing to form collaboration with Easy Credit Company for an undisclosed sum. The author does not give any substantial evidence that environmental company would be willing to work with Easy Credit Card Company and author fails to consider that Environmental organization could already have such type of collaboration with a competitor company of Easy Credit Card Company. The author's premises, the basis of his argument, lacks any legitimate support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author considers a recent poll as the indicator of people's concern about environmental issues. But author forgets that this survey might represent a small fraction of people who are aware of environmental concerns. Author make another assumption that seeing the environment organization's logo on credit card will fetch new users and will motivate the existing users to spend more. But again author fails to give any solid example to prove this assumption. So the author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide the explications.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that entire argument is without base. With the increasing environmental awareness, the author is right in proposing that use of an environmental organizations' logo will bolster the company's environment friendly image among the customers. If author can provide some evidence to prove that using environment organization's logo will bring new customers then author's argument can be verified. Though there are several key issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hoes to change his reader's minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will convince few people.
"The Easy Credit Company would gain an advantage over competing credit card services if we were to donate a portion of the proceeds from the use of our cards to a well-known environmental organization in exchange for the use of its symbol or logo on our card. Since a recent poll shows that a large percentage of the public is concerned about environmental issues, this policy would attract new customers, increase use among existing customers, and enable us to charge interest rates that are higher than the lowest ones available."
Environmental organizations are gaining a lot of popularity of late. Global Warming, Glacier melting and oil spills in oceans are deteriorating our environment. We need some organizations to work for the betterment of our environment. There are those who think that environmental organizations are here for looking after the environmental issues and then there are those who want to use the popularity of environmental organization as a revenue generating vehicle.
In the preceding statement, author claims that The Easy Credit Company would gain an advantage over competing credit card services if Easy Credit Company donates a portion of the proceeds from the use of its credit cards to well-known environmental organization in exchange for the use of environmental organization symbol or logo on Easy Credit Company's Card. Though his claims may well have merits, author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions and based solely on evidence (Survey) the author offers; we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author makes an assumption that environmental organization will be willing to form collaboration with Easy Credit Company for an undisclosed sum. The author does not give any substantial evidence that environmental company would be willing to work with Easy Credit Card Company and author fails to consider that Environmental organization could already have such type of collaboration with a competitor company of Easy Credit Card Company. The author's premises, the basis of his argument, lacks any legitimate support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author considers a recent poll as the indicator of people's concern about environmental issues. But author forgets that this survey might represent a small fraction of people who are aware of environmental concerns. Author make another assumption that seeing the environment organization's logo on credit card will fetch new users and will motivate the existing users to spend more. But again author fails to give any solid example to prove this assumption. So the author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide the explications.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that entire argument is without base. With the increasing environmental awareness, the author is right in proposing that use of an environmental organizations' logo will bolster the company's environment friendly image among the customers. If author can provide some evidence to prove that using environment organization's logo will bring new customers then author's argument can be verified. Though there are several key issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hoes to change his reader's minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will convince few people.
