The following appeared as part of a business plan by Capital idea investment firm:
"In recent years the worldwide demand for fish has grown, and improvements in fishing technology have made larger catches, and thus increased supply, possible: for example, last year's tuna catch was 9 percent greater than the previous year's. To capitalize on these trends, we should therefore invest in the new tartfish processing plant
on tartfish island, where increasing revenue from tourism indicate a strong local economy."
Discuss how well reasoned........etc.
The argument that capitalization of these trends and investment on the new tartfish processing plant will increase revenue omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that improvements in fishing technology have made larger catches of tuna fish does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the increased worldwide demand for fish. Moreover, the indication of a strong local economy because of increasing revenue from tourism in tartfish island does not provide proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the problem of the demand and supply of fish. If improvements in fishing technology have made larger catches, and have increased supply to meet the required demand then the population of fishes might start to decline which will reduce the supply of fishes in the long term. First, the assumption that the increase in the worldwide demand of tartfish has also grown is flawed because the argument does not specify about the type of fish for which the demand has grown. Second, the argument never addresses that the available fishing technology is applicable for catching all type of fishes or only the tuna fish. If the fishing technology is applicable for catching only tuna fish and no other fishes, then supply of other fishes will not be possible . In a weak attempt to support its claim, the argument describes a 9 percent increase in tuna catch in last year than previous years. It could be possible that tuna fish is not in demand. Finally, investing in new tartfish processing plant in order to capitalize these trends is not feasible because the argument does not provide sufficient information about thepopulation of tartfish, demand of tartfish and the cost associated with the investment in the new tartfish plant. If there is no demand for tartfish on tartfish island then establishing a plant will not generate any revenue.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of assuming on the basis of strong indication of local economy because of the increasing revenue from tourism, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
"In recent years the worldwide demand for fish has grown, and improvements in fishing technology have made larger catches, and thus increased supply, possible: for example, last year's tuna catch was 9 percent greater than the previous year's. To capitalize on these trends, we should therefore invest in the new tartfish processing plant
on tartfish island, where increasing revenue from tourism indicate a strong local economy."
Discuss how well reasoned........etc.
The argument that capitalization of these trends and investment on the new tartfish processing plant will increase revenue omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that improvements in fishing technology have made larger catches of tuna fish does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the increased worldwide demand for fish. Moreover, the indication of a strong local economy because of increasing revenue from tourism in tartfish island does not provide proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the problem of the demand and supply of fish. If improvements in fishing technology have made larger catches, and have increased supply to meet the required demand then the population of fishes might start to decline which will reduce the supply of fishes in the long term. First, the assumption that the increase in the worldwide demand of tartfish has also grown is flawed because the argument does not specify about the type of fish for which the demand has grown. Second, the argument never addresses that the available fishing technology is applicable for catching all type of fishes or only the tuna fish. If the fishing technology is applicable for catching only tuna fish and no other fishes, then supply of other fishes will not be possible . In a weak attempt to support its claim, the argument describes a 9 percent increase in tuna catch in last year than previous years. It could be possible that tuna fish is not in demand. Finally, investing in new tartfish processing plant in order to capitalize these trends is not feasible because the argument does not provide sufficient information about thepopulation of tartfish, demand of tartfish and the cost associated with the investment in the new tartfish plant. If there is no demand for tartfish on tartfish island then establishing a plant will not generate any revenue.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of assuming on the basis of strong indication of local economy because of the increasing revenue from tourism, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
