The above stated passage concludes that foreign company selling "identical" motorcycle X for less is unable to attract customers of Motorcycle X, because of a missing vital characteristic "loud noise". This argument fails to consider the following key statements, which makes this argument to be very flawed. The main flaws of the argument are 1) analogy to car sales 2) cause and affect of loud noise and finally, 3) ignoring supply and demand of motorcycles.
The author of the article makes an analogy of motorcycle sales to car sales. The two products are very different and there are not enough similarities present to conclude sales of analysis of both. A consumer purchasing a car may review different characteristics, than a potential buyer of a motorcycle. Different characteristics in purchase may be valued different and noise level may just be one of those characteristics. There are not enough similarities, to make the comparison between a car and a motorcycle.
Following, the argument suggests should the foreign company imitate noise level of Motorcycle X, the sales will increase. This is not a true cause and effect argument. It is not guaranteed that loud noise causes increased sales in the market. There are not enough evidence provided to concluded the correlation between the loud noise and the sales. For that reason, it cannot be concluded that noise level is the cause of increased sales.
Additionally, the author fails to consider the supply and demand of the motorcycle market. There are no conditions provided to indicate the market where the foreign company makes the similar motorcycle. It is not stated where motorcycle X's buyers are. Since it can be assumed that they are in different countries, the demand and supply can greatly differ in both markets. Motorcycle X's audience may be in great need of a motorcycle and in foreign company, it may just be a luxury item, that not many are able to afford. Thus, this is another flaw present in the argument.
For the reasons above, it can be concluded that the argument is very flawed. There is not enough evidence provided to draw a conclusion leading that noise level correlated to sales. This argument may be strengthened by addressing each of the flaws. For example, provide information about the supply and demand of both markets; provide more examples to state why cars and motorcycle can be compared in the way there are and provide evidence there is a strong correlation between noise level and sales, by providing statistical data and surveys' findings. As it stands, however, the the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated above.
The author of the article makes an analogy of motorcycle sales to car sales. The two products are very different and there are not enough similarities present to conclude sales of analysis of both. A consumer purchasing a car may review different characteristics, than a potential buyer of a motorcycle. Different characteristics in purchase may be valued different and noise level may just be one of those characteristics. There are not enough similarities, to make the comparison between a car and a motorcycle.
Following, the argument suggests should the foreign company imitate noise level of Motorcycle X, the sales will increase. This is not a true cause and effect argument. It is not guaranteed that loud noise causes increased sales in the market. There are not enough evidence provided to concluded the correlation between the loud noise and the sales. For that reason, it cannot be concluded that noise level is the cause of increased sales.
Additionally, the author fails to consider the supply and demand of the motorcycle market. There are no conditions provided to indicate the market where the foreign company makes the similar motorcycle. It is not stated where motorcycle X's buyers are. Since it can be assumed that they are in different countries, the demand and supply can greatly differ in both markets. Motorcycle X's audience may be in great need of a motorcycle and in foreign company, it may just be a luxury item, that not many are able to afford. Thus, this is another flaw present in the argument.
For the reasons above, it can be concluded that the argument is very flawed. There is not enough evidence provided to draw a conclusion leading that noise level correlated to sales. This argument may be strengthened by addressing each of the flaws. For example, provide information about the supply and demand of both markets; provide more examples to state why cars and motorcycle can be compared in the way there are and provide evidence there is a strong correlation between noise level and sales, by providing statistical data and surveys' findings. As it stands, however, the the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated above.
