The following appeared as part of an article in a trade publication:
"Stronger laws are needed to protect new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators. With such protection, manufacturers will naturally invest in the development of new home-security products and production technologies. Without stronger laws, therefore, manufacturers will cut back on investment. From this will follow a corresponding decline not only in product quality and marketability, but also in production efficiency, and thus ultimately a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry."
The author of the memorandum states that the company should offer price reductions on all drinks produced by the firm. His assumption is supported by evidence of increased unit sales of energy drinks and favorable reception by majority of customers after promotional price reduction. However the conclusion is based on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence.
First the writer assumes that increase in sales was caused by promotional price reductions. But he fails to prove that this was the case. In fact, other factors might significantly influence increase in sales. For example seasonal factors might influence volume of sales. In summer, the demand for energy drinks might rise rapidly, because of increase in summer sport activities like cycling or hiking. Or if supply of competitors products was temporarily limited because of strike of workers , the price reduction might not be the main factor for increased sales. The author would strenghten his argument considerably if he provided evidence that the increase in sales was caused by price reductions.
In addition, the writer falsely assumes that the profitability would increase if similar price reductions were offered on all drinks produced by the firms. This assumption does not constitute a logical argument. In fact, the company might be offering a product, that is perceived by customers as exclusive. If the price was loweved the perception of exclusivity might disappear, and therefore the sales of this product would decrease. In order to better support his ideas, the writer would need to provide evidence, that the company offered products from same price category.
Finally the writer author also mentions that the price reductions on energy drink was favorably received by the majority of their customers. But the author fails to provide evidence for this conclusion. He begins with statement that the reduction were favorably received. However fails to prove this by stating exact numbers nor he does with majority of their customer. The writer would strenghten his argument significantly if he provided exact numbers supporting his statement.
Using simple statements and poor reasoning the author failed to prove that similar price reduction should be offered on all drinks produced.
"Stronger laws are needed to protect new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators. With such protection, manufacturers will naturally invest in the development of new home-security products and production technologies. Without stronger laws, therefore, manufacturers will cut back on investment. From this will follow a corresponding decline not only in product quality and marketability, but also in production efficiency, and thus ultimately a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry."
The author of the memorandum states that the company should offer price reductions on all drinks produced by the firm. His assumption is supported by evidence of increased unit sales of energy drinks and favorable reception by majority of customers after promotional price reduction. However the conclusion is based on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence.
First the writer assumes that increase in sales was caused by promotional price reductions. But he fails to prove that this was the case. In fact, other factors might significantly influence increase in sales. For example seasonal factors might influence volume of sales. In summer, the demand for energy drinks might rise rapidly, because of increase in summer sport activities like cycling or hiking. Or if supply of competitors products was temporarily limited because of strike of workers , the price reduction might not be the main factor for increased sales. The author would strenghten his argument considerably if he provided evidence that the increase in sales was caused by price reductions.
In addition, the writer falsely assumes that the profitability would increase if similar price reductions were offered on all drinks produced by the firms. This assumption does not constitute a logical argument. In fact, the company might be offering a product, that is perceived by customers as exclusive. If the price was loweved the perception of exclusivity might disappear, and therefore the sales of this product would decrease. In order to better support his ideas, the writer would need to provide evidence, that the company offered products from same price category.
Finally the writer author also mentions that the price reductions on energy drink was favorably received by the majority of their customers. But the author fails to provide evidence for this conclusion. He begins with statement that the reduction were favorably received. However fails to prove this by stating exact numbers nor he does with majority of their customer. The writer would strenghten his argument significantly if he provided exact numbers supporting his statement.
Using simple statements and poor reasoning the author failed to prove that similar price reduction should be offered on all drinks produced.
