The following appeared as a memorandum from the vice-president of the Dolci candy company:
"Given the success of our premium and most expensive line of chocolate candies in a recent taste test and the consequent increase in sales, we should shift our business focus to producing additional lines of premium candy rather than our lower-priced, ordinary candies. When the current economic boom ends and consumers can no longer buy major luxury items, such as cars, they will still want to indulge in small luxuries, such as expensive candies."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
At first fleeting look, the reasons given by the vice president of Dolci Candy Company of shifting the business focus to producing premium candies are sound and valid. Though his claims have well merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned proposal, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we cannot accept his proposal valid. The vice president's proposal lacks cogency for 3 reasons.
Primarily, the argument posits that the success of chocolate candies in the recent taste test will continue in future. This fact is scant evidence. The VP readily assumes that the taste test was representative of the consumer preferences in general. He fails to take into consideration the possibility of change in the preference of the consumers. For instance, if the future sees a change in consumer preference, will make the company taste losses instead.
Secondly, the VP speculates that there was increase in sales due to the sale of premium candies. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. To illustrate, the increase in sales could be a result of increased sale of ordinary candies or the innovative marketing techniques or by slash of retails price, etc. If the VP had provided some statistical data featuring the sales figures then the argument would have been a bit more convincing.
Finally, the VP concludes that even when the economy boom ends there will be market for the company's expensive candies. By this is the VP trying to say that, in conditions where the people are craving to save a penny they will buy the expensive candies made by Dolce Candy Company? Nothing is mentioned about the spending habits of the people when the economy is in crises. So it cannot be inferred that even during economic crises, people will buy the expensive candies.
The VP has not made a convincing case for the recommendation to shift the companies' business focus. In sum, the VPs illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
"Given the success of our premium and most expensive line of chocolate candies in a recent taste test and the consequent increase in sales, we should shift our business focus to producing additional lines of premium candy rather than our lower-priced, ordinary candies. When the current economic boom ends and consumers can no longer buy major luxury items, such as cars, they will still want to indulge in small luxuries, such as expensive candies."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
At first fleeting look, the reasons given by the vice president of Dolci Candy Company of shifting the business focus to producing premium candies are sound and valid. Though his claims have well merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned proposal, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we cannot accept his proposal valid. The vice president's proposal lacks cogency for 3 reasons.
Primarily, the argument posits that the success of chocolate candies in the recent taste test will continue in future. This fact is scant evidence. The VP readily assumes that the taste test was representative of the consumer preferences in general. He fails to take into consideration the possibility of change in the preference of the consumers. For instance, if the future sees a change in consumer preference, will make the company taste losses instead.
Secondly, the VP speculates that there was increase in sales due to the sale of premium candies. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. To illustrate, the increase in sales could be a result of increased sale of ordinary candies or the innovative marketing techniques or by slash of retails price, etc. If the VP had provided some statistical data featuring the sales figures then the argument would have been a bit more convincing.
Finally, the VP concludes that even when the economy boom ends there will be market for the company's expensive candies. By this is the VP trying to say that, in conditions where the people are craving to save a penny they will buy the expensive candies made by Dolce Candy Company? Nothing is mentioned about the spending habits of the people when the economy is in crises. So it cannot be inferred that even during economic crises, people will buy the expensive candies.
The VP has not made a convincing case for the recommendation to shift the companies' business focus. In sum, the VPs illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
