"Davis Technologies, a computer-chip maker, could solve its problem of declining sales by dropping its prices. This would make Davis better able to compete in the highly competitive computer chip market. The sales of chips would increase and this would substantially boost Davis' market share."
The author in the statement above has provided a solution to a problem of declining sales by assuming a cause and effect relationship is at work. She states that Davis Technologies could increase sales of its computer chips by dropping prices, which would boost its market share and make it more competitive. However, this argument is weak because it lacks solid evidence to uphold the author's conclusions.
First, the author fails to provide any evidence to suggest that decreased computer chip sales are a result of their current price. The argument relies on the unstated assumption that the firm's sales are declining because the chip is too expensive. There could be other reasons for low sales - for example a mechanical flaw, poor quality, a sector-wide slump due to low overall computer sales. The author does not offer any proof that changing the price of the chip will increase sales, boost market shares or make Davis Technologies more competitive. Lowering the price could also lead to unintended consequences. For example investors might believe that the company is desperate to boost sales and lose confidence, thereby pulling their shares and causing the share price to plunge.
Furthermore, the author assumes that dropping the price of the chips would reverse a sales decline when in fact sales could continue to slide rather than increase. If the actual reason consumers aren't buying the chips is because of external factors other than the price, the changing it would make no difference. In order for the assumption to be true that lowering the price would make Davis Technologies more competitive again, it must also be true that there are no other ways to make the company more profitable, such as reducing costs or introducing a new product.
The author could strengthen her argument by providing evidence - for example, a customer survey - to show the reason people aren't buying the chips is because of their high price and that they would start buying them again if the price was lowered. She could also back up her assertion regarding the company's profitability and competitiveness by logically linking the two with the cost of the chip, rather than its quality.
In sum, the author's argument is weak because it depends heavily on unstated assumptions and provides no evidence to bolster its claims. By including some facts to support the conclusion, and by explicitly stating or clarifying the assumptions, she could put forth a much more convincing argument for Davis Technologies to lower the price of its chips.
The author in the statement above has provided a solution to a problem of declining sales by assuming a cause and effect relationship is at work. She states that Davis Technologies could increase sales of its computer chips by dropping prices, which would boost its market share and make it more competitive. However, this argument is weak because it lacks solid evidence to uphold the author's conclusions.
First, the author fails to provide any evidence to suggest that decreased computer chip sales are a result of their current price. The argument relies on the unstated assumption that the firm's sales are declining because the chip is too expensive. There could be other reasons for low sales - for example a mechanical flaw, poor quality, a sector-wide slump due to low overall computer sales. The author does not offer any proof that changing the price of the chip will increase sales, boost market shares or make Davis Technologies more competitive. Lowering the price could also lead to unintended consequences. For example investors might believe that the company is desperate to boost sales and lose confidence, thereby pulling their shares and causing the share price to plunge.
Furthermore, the author assumes that dropping the price of the chips would reverse a sales decline when in fact sales could continue to slide rather than increase. If the actual reason consumers aren't buying the chips is because of external factors other than the price, the changing it would make no difference. In order for the assumption to be true that lowering the price would make Davis Technologies more competitive again, it must also be true that there are no other ways to make the company more profitable, such as reducing costs or introducing a new product.
The author could strengthen her argument by providing evidence - for example, a customer survey - to show the reason people aren't buying the chips is because of their high price and that they would start buying them again if the price was lowered. She could also back up her assertion regarding the company's profitability and competitiveness by logically linking the two with the cost of the chip, rather than its quality.
In sum, the author's argument is weak because it depends heavily on unstated assumptions and provides no evidence to bolster its claims. By including some facts to support the conclusion, and by explicitly stating or clarifying the assumptions, she could put forth a much more convincing argument for Davis Technologies to lower the price of its chips.
