The following appeared in the opinion column of a financial magazine.
"On average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. Since the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically within the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly during that period. Furthermore, to take advantage of the trend, these stores should begin to replace some of those products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The argument as presented tries to differentiate between the middle-aged and the young consumers and gives a conclusion based on the percentage of their expenditure towards department store products. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author compares the percentage expenditure of middle and younger consumer whereas he does not tell anything about the comparison of their total expenditures. Even if the percentage expenditure of young consumers towards department store products is less, a higher absolute total expenditure could mean that their expenditure towards store products is actually higher. In addition, the author talks about increase in the no of middle-aged people within the next decade, but he does not give data on the corresponding increase in the no of young people.
Moreover the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. By suggesting to replace products intended for young consumers by products for middle-aged people, he assumes that the middle-aged people buy products only for themselves, whereas they could well be buying things for their children.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. To strengthen his argument, the author could provide data on the relative total expenditure of the both groups of population. Also he could give statistical figures on the population of both the groups and their projected increase in the next decade. Thus with some research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
"On average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. Since the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically within the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly during that period. Furthermore, to take advantage of the trend, these stores should begin to replace some of those products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The argument as presented tries to differentiate between the middle-aged and the young consumers and gives a conclusion based on the percentage of their expenditure towards department store products. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author compares the percentage expenditure of middle and younger consumer whereas he does not tell anything about the comparison of their total expenditures. Even if the percentage expenditure of young consumers towards department store products is less, a higher absolute total expenditure could mean that their expenditure towards store products is actually higher. In addition, the author talks about increase in the no of middle-aged people within the next decade, but he does not give data on the corresponding increase in the no of young people.
Moreover the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. By suggesting to replace products intended for young consumers by products for middle-aged people, he assumes that the middle-aged people buy products only for themselves, whereas they could well be buying things for their children.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. To strengthen his argument, the author could provide data on the relative total expenditure of the both groups of population. Also he could give statistical figures on the population of both the groups and their projected increase in the next decade. Thus with some research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
