Much appreciated!
Prompt:
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 products lack 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.
Response:
The argument presented here presents evidence around sales of a foreign motorcycle in the United States. The author seeks to debunk the claim that reduced sales are caused by the lack of loud noise that appeals to motorcycle X customers. To do that, the author draws on two types of arguments. First, he compares motorcycle sales to cars sales showing that foreign cars sell well in the US despite being quieter. Second, he attempts to show that noisiness may not be a key decision factor for motorcycle X customers by drawing on tv advertisements.
In both arguments the author makes assumptions around customer behavior. In comparing motorcycles to cars he assumes that buyers take similar factors into account when choosing a model. To confirm this assumption the author would need to show that customers have similar demographics, as well as buy motorcycles and cars for similar reasons i.e. transportation from point A to point B. If we found that buyers of motorcycles were middle-aged men and buyers of cars spanned the whole populatoin, the author's argument would be weakened. Similarly, if motorcycle buyers already own one car, they may be buying a motorcycle as part of their hobby and not for functional reasons. A more appropriate analogy that could improve the quality of the argument would be a comparison of buyers of sports or luxury cars who already own a car that they use for transportation. Similarly, we could control for demographic variation when comparing motorcycle who tend to be predominantly male and car buyers. If we still found that buyers of sports and luxury cars prefer quieter models the author's argument would be significantly strengthened.
In his second argument focused on TV advertisements for motorcycle X the author assumes that the features highlighted in commercials reflect customer preferences. This may not be the case if the company manufacturing motorcycle X has not conducted proper market research or if this group of customers does not typical make their decisions based on TV ads. Finally it may also be the case that loud noise associated with motorcycle X is so deeply ingrained in customers' minds that the manufacturer does not feel the need to highlight it in TV ads.
Prompt:
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 products lack 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.
Response:
The argument presented here presents evidence around sales of a foreign motorcycle in the United States. The author seeks to debunk the claim that reduced sales are caused by the lack of loud noise that appeals to motorcycle X customers. To do that, the author draws on two types of arguments. First, he compares motorcycle sales to cars sales showing that foreign cars sell well in the US despite being quieter. Second, he attempts to show that noisiness may not be a key decision factor for motorcycle X customers by drawing on tv advertisements.
In both arguments the author makes assumptions around customer behavior. In comparing motorcycles to cars he assumes that buyers take similar factors into account when choosing a model. To confirm this assumption the author would need to show that customers have similar demographics, as well as buy motorcycles and cars for similar reasons i.e. transportation from point A to point B. If we found that buyers of motorcycles were middle-aged men and buyers of cars spanned the whole populatoin, the author's argument would be weakened. Similarly, if motorcycle buyers already own one car, they may be buying a motorcycle as part of their hobby and not for functional reasons. A more appropriate analogy that could improve the quality of the argument would be a comparison of buyers of sports or luxury cars who already own a car that they use for transportation. Similarly, we could control for demographic variation when comparing motorcycle who tend to be predominantly male and car buyers. If we still found that buyers of sports and luxury cars prefer quieter models the author's argument would be significantly strengthened.
In his second argument focused on TV advertisements for motorcycle X the author assumes that the features highlighted in commercials reflect customer preferences. This may not be the case if the company manufacturing motorcycle X has not conducted proper market research or if this group of customers does not typical make their decisions based on TV ads. Finally it may also be the case that loud noise associated with motorcycle X is so deeply ingrained in customers' minds that the manufacturer does not feel the need to highlight it in TV ads.
