Please also tell me if this is sufficient or more should be added to it. Thanks!!!

Argument:

The following appeared in an advertisement:
"In a survey conducted a couple of years ago by a newspaper, it was learned that cars manufactured by Maranda Motors were involved in forty percent fewer fatal accidents to drivers than vehicles build by any other single manufacturer. Moreover Maranada does not manufacture red cars, which are known to be involved in most accidents. Therefore, anyone concerned about safety and wants to buy a car should buy the latest models of Maranda cars."

Analysis:

The author in the argument assumes that a survey conducted few years back by a newspaper provides the information regarding accident of cars which were forty percent less by Maranda Motors(MM) cars as compared with other single cars manufacturers. Also, the reason for accidents is the colour of the car as assumed by the author is invalid, and therefore for complete safety people should by cars manufactured by Maranda does not provide complete information. The author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author provides, we cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue in authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author is considering a survey to be fact, which in not true as survey is an estimation. Also, as it was conducted few years back, that does not provide complete information as there may be difference from what has happened few years back for eg: there are possibilities that currently MM cars may be the reason for accidents if they are happening. Also, forty percent fewer accidents than others is not a fact as there are possibilities that during that time MM cars were less in numbers etc. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate support and render his conclusion unacceptable.

In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Firstly, the survey conducted that also few years back gives proper information about the current situation which is not true. Secondly, MM cars involved in forty percent fewer fatal accidents is an unknown assumption as there are many possibilities for eg: During that time, MM may be a company which was at entry levels, also it is possible that such advertisement was given on purpose to attract customers making them believe that MM have very reliable cars, in addition to this, it is also possible that accidents occurred during that time for several other reasons like weather, etc. thirdly, the colour is not related to accidents. The author weakens his argument failing to provide explication of the links between safety and MM cars he assumes exists.

In Sum, the authors conclusion that latest model of MM cars can provide complete safety is invalid as there are many possibilities of accidents to occur as they can occur anytime. If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind to the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument , fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.