I have never seen an argument that doesn't have at least a couple of flaws. I'm not familiar with the "motorcycle X" stem, but maybe you could post the prompt to get some feedback on the argument from other people? Like your prep book, I always tell my students that every argument has flaws.

Andrea,

Thanks for responding - here's the statement:

""Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track."

Well, here are a few thoughts on flaws in the argument:

1. It assumes without providing justification that cars are analogous to motorcycles in that evidence regarding the impact of noisiness as it applies to the sale of cars is relevant to an argument about the sales impact of noisiness on motorcycles.

2. It assumes that television advertisements are an accurate depiction of the selling points of a product. The argument could easily be weakened by evidence demonstrating that the loud noise made by motorcycle X is used to appeal to customers on a grassroots level.

3. Although the argument may be correct in assuming that the noise is not the most compelling reason for the success of motorcycle X, it neglects to explore the potential issue of customer loyalty; motorcycle X has been around for 70 years, but the argument doesn't bother to address the possible impact of that on the foreign company's failure to lure away motorcycle X customers.

All of these unstated assumptions could strengthen the argument if they were explicitly stated; whether you characterize them as flaws or just as areas that could be strengthened is up to you, but there are definitely enough things wrong here to provide a compelling Analysis of an Argument. Hope this helps!

Andrea,

Thanks for the excellent dissection. I now see how to approach these AWA essays

Happy to help!