The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a daily newspaper:
"Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B, the
pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line
of products. Thus Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so
many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc
Could anybody please help me to rate my AWA Essay. Any comment would be highly appreciated.
The author´s argument that Company A can also be expected to fail due to the fact that its games are present in many American homes and that its demand is nearly exhausted is flawed. In drawing this conclusion, the author assumes that having a large share of the market is rather than an advantage, a weakness for Company A. Furthermore, the author does not present any evidence to support the claim that the demand is nearly exhausted. Finally the author assumes that because Company B collapsed, Company A will collapse too.
First, the author assumes that having a large share of the market is rather than an advantage, a weakness for Company A. For example the market penetration for Company A could be very important in the future for the release of a new console or game. Additionally, there is no evidence to establish what percentage of the market share does Company A has. In this case, the word "large" could stand for twenty, thirty or forty percent of the world´s market. However without additional information it can´t be determined.
Second, the author does not present any evidence to support the claim that the demand is nearly exhausted. The vague use of the word "nearly" does not allow to establish the level of the demand that has been attended. For example "nearly" could be eighty or ninety percent. In any of the two cases, there still is a large portion of the demand that could be attended by Company A. Furthermore, the author only mentions that Company A games are present in many American homes. With this piece of information, then, the author concludes that the demand is nearly exhausted. Again the vague use of the word "many" does not allow to establish the amount of homes that presently are using Company A products. It is also a mistake to draw a conclusion about the worlds demand by only taking into account America´s market. For example, what if Company A biggest market is located in Asia or Europe?
Third, the author assumes that because Company B collapsed, the same will happen to company A. This assumption fails to take into account the real reasons why Company B collapsed. This collapse could be explained by the strategy, cost structure or lack of innovation that Company B followed. However, the future of Company A cannot be established by only mentioning what happened to Company B.
Finally, the argument could be strengthened if the author provides statistical information on the markets composition and geographical distribution for video games (hardware and software). The argument could be also strengthened if the author provides information about the collapse of Company B. Additionally, the author could avoid the use of word such as "nearly" and "many" by providing information on the demand for video games. However, as it stands, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.
"Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B, the
pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line
of products. Thus Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so
many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc
Could anybody please help me to rate my AWA Essay. Any comment would be highly appreciated.
The author´s argument that Company A can also be expected to fail due to the fact that its games are present in many American homes and that its demand is nearly exhausted is flawed. In drawing this conclusion, the author assumes that having a large share of the market is rather than an advantage, a weakness for Company A. Furthermore, the author does not present any evidence to support the claim that the demand is nearly exhausted. Finally the author assumes that because Company B collapsed, Company A will collapse too.
First, the author assumes that having a large share of the market is rather than an advantage, a weakness for Company A. For example the market penetration for Company A could be very important in the future for the release of a new console or game. Additionally, there is no evidence to establish what percentage of the market share does Company A has. In this case, the word "large" could stand for twenty, thirty or forty percent of the world´s market. However without additional information it can´t be determined.
Second, the author does not present any evidence to support the claim that the demand is nearly exhausted. The vague use of the word "nearly" does not allow to establish the level of the demand that has been attended. For example "nearly" could be eighty or ninety percent. In any of the two cases, there still is a large portion of the demand that could be attended by Company A. Furthermore, the author only mentions that Company A games are present in many American homes. With this piece of information, then, the author concludes that the demand is nearly exhausted. Again the vague use of the word "many" does not allow to establish the amount of homes that presently are using Company A products. It is also a mistake to draw a conclusion about the worlds demand by only taking into account America´s market. For example, what if Company A biggest market is located in Asia or Europe?
Third, the author assumes that because Company B collapsed, the same will happen to company A. This assumption fails to take into account the real reasons why Company B collapsed. This collapse could be explained by the strategy, cost structure or lack of innovation that Company B followed. However, the future of Company A cannot be established by only mentioning what happened to Company B.
Finally, the argument could be strengthened if the author provides statistical information on the markets composition and geographical distribution for video games (hardware and software). The argument could be also strengthened if the author provides information about the collapse of Company B. Additionally, the author could avoid the use of word such as "nearly" and "many" by providing information on the demand for video games. However, as it stands, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.
