I have never had anyone review the AoA, so I have no idea how I am doing on this. I usually follow a template, but during practice tests, everything I know just flies out of my head.
Analysis of an argument
The following appeared as part of an article in a weekly news magazine:
"The country of Sacchar can solve its current trade deficit problem by lowering the price of sugar, its primary export. Such an action would make Sacchar better able to compete for markets with other sugar exporting countries. The sale of Sacchar's sugar abroad would increase and this would substantially reduce Sacchar's trade deficit."
The author of the above passage employs a cause and effect strategy to explain Sacchar's trade deficit problem. However, the argument contains many logical flaws as the author provides no evidence to suggest that Sacchar's trade deficit is due to the high price of sugar. It could in fact be due to a multitude of other factors. Nor does she offer a premise to support her conclusion that lowering the price of sugar would make the country more competitive and increase sales, thereby reducing Sacchar's trade deficit.
Firstly, the author's conclusion that a lower price of sugar would lead to increased exports abroad relies upon the assumption that Sacchar's trade rivals sell their sugar at a lower price already, and that is why countries prefer to buy from them. The author provides no evidence of this. In fact, there could be other reasons why importers prefer to buy their sugar from outside Sacchar: geopolitical instability, a global economic downturn or poor quality sugar could all be reasons why Sacchar's sugar is not selling well. For the author's assertion that lowering the price of sugar would solve Sacchar's trade deficit to be true, it must also be true that countries are not buying the product because of high prices.
Secondly, the author posits that lowering the price of sugar would make Sacchar more competitive on the international market, which would lead to increased sales. Again, the author provides no premise for this conclusion. Since sugar is Sacchar's main export, setting the price too low could inadvertantly result in lower revenue from exports and hence lowering the price would be an unprofitable exercise.
In addition, the author has concluded that increased sugar sales would reduce Sacchar's trade deficit, but has failed to logically connect the two. Increased sales may not necessarily lead to a reduced trade deficit. The author has not provided any information on the relative size of the deficit. If sugar sales do in fact go up, they may not provide enough of a surplus to reduce the deficit by a substantial margin.
To sum up, the author has based her argument on several unstated assumptions, and could strengthen the passage by logically connecting them. She could provide statistics to show that Sacchar's sugar producing rivals had successfully lowered the price of sugar which resulted in increased exports to countries. Or, she could illustrate that increased exports alone are enough to reduce a country's trade deficit. But unless the author also proves that Sacchar's deficit is due to overpriced sugar, her argument falls flat.
Analysis of an argument
The following appeared as part of an article in a weekly news magazine:
"The country of Sacchar can solve its current trade deficit problem by lowering the price of sugar, its primary export. Such an action would make Sacchar better able to compete for markets with other sugar exporting countries. The sale of Sacchar's sugar abroad would increase and this would substantially reduce Sacchar's trade deficit."
The author of the above passage employs a cause and effect strategy to explain Sacchar's trade deficit problem. However, the argument contains many logical flaws as the author provides no evidence to suggest that Sacchar's trade deficit is due to the high price of sugar. It could in fact be due to a multitude of other factors. Nor does she offer a premise to support her conclusion that lowering the price of sugar would make the country more competitive and increase sales, thereby reducing Sacchar's trade deficit.
Firstly, the author's conclusion that a lower price of sugar would lead to increased exports abroad relies upon the assumption that Sacchar's trade rivals sell their sugar at a lower price already, and that is why countries prefer to buy from them. The author provides no evidence of this. In fact, there could be other reasons why importers prefer to buy their sugar from outside Sacchar: geopolitical instability, a global economic downturn or poor quality sugar could all be reasons why Sacchar's sugar is not selling well. For the author's assertion that lowering the price of sugar would solve Sacchar's trade deficit to be true, it must also be true that countries are not buying the product because of high prices.
Secondly, the author posits that lowering the price of sugar would make Sacchar more competitive on the international market, which would lead to increased sales. Again, the author provides no premise for this conclusion. Since sugar is Sacchar's main export, setting the price too low could inadvertantly result in lower revenue from exports and hence lowering the price would be an unprofitable exercise.
In addition, the author has concluded that increased sugar sales would reduce Sacchar's trade deficit, but has failed to logically connect the two. Increased sales may not necessarily lead to a reduced trade deficit. The author has not provided any information on the relative size of the deficit. If sugar sales do in fact go up, they may not provide enough of a surplus to reduce the deficit by a substantial margin.
To sum up, the author has based her argument on several unstated assumptions, and could strengthen the passage by logically connecting them. She could provide statistics to show that Sacchar's sugar producing rivals had successfully lowered the price of sugar which resulted in increased exports to countries. Or, she could illustrate that increased exports alone are enough to reduce a country's trade deficit. But unless the author also proves that Sacchar's deficit is due to overpriced sugar, her argument falls flat.
