The following appeared in an American medical journal:
"A new study has shown that cardiac patients can reduce their chances of heart attacks by taking a reduced-potency aspirin pill once per day. Therefore, now would be a good time to invest In Malatet Pharmaceutical Corp., which happens to be Europe's largest producer of reduced-potency aspirin."
Discuss how logically convincing you find this argument. In your discussion, you should analyze the argument's line of reasoning and use of evidence. It may be appropriate in your critique to call into question certain assumptions underlying the argument and/or to indicate what evidence might weaken or strengthen the argument. It may also be appropriate to discuss how you would alter the argument to make it more convincing and/or discuss what additional evidence, if any, would aid in evaluating the argument.
The author states that a new study has shown that patients taking a reduced-potency aspirin pill once per day reduce chances of heart attacks. Hence, it's a good time to invest in Europe's largest producer of reduced-potency aspirin, Malatet Pharmaceutical Corp. However I think that the author's conclusion is seriously flawed due to the following reasons which have not been considered.
The author says that it's the largest producer of reduced-potency aspirin; however we are not sure about the credibility of the company. For investors, it is important to know how a company has performed over a certain period of time to decide on investing in it. The quality and past success of a particular product is an important factor to consider before anyone puts his or her money into something. It is a human tendency to associate certain products to certain brand names, and once people are convinced that a particular brand is the best in its league then that company surely does well.
Another point which weakens the author's conclusion is that since it is a European company we are unsure about its global reach. The argument does not mention whether the company sells its pills in the regions where the maximum population is affected from heart diseases. For example, United States might have the highest casualties from heart attacks and if Malatet continues to sell only in Europe, where the number is much less, it is not going to help the companies profit.
Finally the author does not consider the market competition for Malatet. We know for sure that it's the largest producer in Europe, but we don't have any idea about the second largest producer. The second largest producer and other competitors of Malatet, might as well increase their production to compete. This study provides a good opportunity for other companies as well to stake a claim in the market by providing a top-class product and eventually hurting Malatets profits.
Hence, from the reasons mentioned above the authors claim to invest in Malatet Pharmaceutical Corp. is seriously weakened and the reader requires more proof to ensure that Malatet is a good investment.
"A new study has shown that cardiac patients can reduce their chances of heart attacks by taking a reduced-potency aspirin pill once per day. Therefore, now would be a good time to invest In Malatet Pharmaceutical Corp., which happens to be Europe's largest producer of reduced-potency aspirin."
Discuss how logically convincing you find this argument. In your discussion, you should analyze the argument's line of reasoning and use of evidence. It may be appropriate in your critique to call into question certain assumptions underlying the argument and/or to indicate what evidence might weaken or strengthen the argument. It may also be appropriate to discuss how you would alter the argument to make it more convincing and/or discuss what additional evidence, if any, would aid in evaluating the argument.
The author states that a new study has shown that patients taking a reduced-potency aspirin pill once per day reduce chances of heart attacks. Hence, it's a good time to invest in Europe's largest producer of reduced-potency aspirin, Malatet Pharmaceutical Corp. However I think that the author's conclusion is seriously flawed due to the following reasons which have not been considered.
The author says that it's the largest producer of reduced-potency aspirin; however we are not sure about the credibility of the company. For investors, it is important to know how a company has performed over a certain period of time to decide on investing in it. The quality and past success of a particular product is an important factor to consider before anyone puts his or her money into something. It is a human tendency to associate certain products to certain brand names, and once people are convinced that a particular brand is the best in its league then that company surely does well.
Another point which weakens the author's conclusion is that since it is a European company we are unsure about its global reach. The argument does not mention whether the company sells its pills in the regions where the maximum population is affected from heart diseases. For example, United States might have the highest casualties from heart attacks and if Malatet continues to sell only in Europe, where the number is much less, it is not going to help the companies profit.
Finally the author does not consider the market competition for Malatet. We know for sure that it's the largest producer in Europe, but we don't have any idea about the second largest producer. The second largest producer and other competitors of Malatet, might as well increase their production to compete. This study provides a good opportunity for other companies as well to stake a claim in the market by providing a top-class product and eventually hurting Malatets profits.
Hence, from the reasons mentioned above the authors claim to invest in Malatet Pharmaceutical Corp. is seriously weakened and the reader requires more proof to ensure that Malatet is a good investment.
