Please give comments on areas in which i need to improve. It will be highly appreciated
The following appeared as a memorandum from the vice-president of the Dolci candy company:
“Given the success of our premium and most expensive line of chocolate candies in a recent taste test and the consequent increase in sales, we should shift our business focus to producing additional lines of premium candy rather than our lower-priced, ordinary candies. When the current economic boom ends and consumers can no longer buy major luxury items, such as cars, they will still want to indulge in small luxuries, such as expensive candies.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author of the argument concludes that Dolci Candy Company should shift the business to produce only expensive and premium candy given the success it has achieved in a recent taste test. He also concludes that company should stop focusing on ordinary candies. But in giving the line of reasoning behind the conclusion, the author has unnecessatily presumed a lot of things which render this argument unconvincing and weak.
First of all, the author provides no evidence about the cost-benefits of producing additional candy lines for expensive candies. He simply assumes that consumers will prefer to buy the expensive candies after 'economic boom' ends. Yet he provides no reason to beleive that this trend will definitely happen. What if economy remains on a high for next four-five years? If the company shifts focus on expensive candies and produces them in huge numbers, additional inventory and manufacturing costs will hamper the profitability of the company. The more they produce, the more they loose.
Secondly, the author presumes that the recent surge in sales was only because of the success of the candy in the taste test and that the trend will continue in the future. But he cites no evidence to validate this point. If recent boost in sales was only because of impulsive orders from a community or a school celebrating some festival, then the author's prediction is thwarted. The author assumes that linear growth will continue, for the candy has got the success. If this is not the case, the company's plan to add up more lines for additional lines is a fallacy.
Thirdly, the author has predicted consumer taste concerning the expensive candies when the economic boom ends. He cites that consumer will still fall for small luxury items, such as candies. Even if we assume at one point that this will happen, but we can not be assured that consumers will prefer Dolic candies only. Moreover, if competitors produce less expensive candies of the same quality, any day consumers prefer these candies and not Dolic's.
Finally, it can be concurred that the argument is not at all persuasive and substantial as it stands. It has many loopholes and presumptions, which fail to give a comprehensive picture of the argument. There is no reason to believe that the company will be better off producing more expensive candies rather than ordinary candies. The argument could have been more authorative and solid had the author considered aforementioned points.
The following appeared as a memorandum from the vice-president of the Dolci candy company:
“Given the success of our premium and most expensive line of chocolate candies in a recent taste test and the consequent increase in sales, we should shift our business focus to producing additional lines of premium candy rather than our lower-priced, ordinary candies. When the current economic boom ends and consumers can no longer buy major luxury items, such as cars, they will still want to indulge in small luxuries, such as expensive candies.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author of the argument concludes that Dolci Candy Company should shift the business to produce only expensive and premium candy given the success it has achieved in a recent taste test. He also concludes that company should stop focusing on ordinary candies. But in giving the line of reasoning behind the conclusion, the author has unnecessatily presumed a lot of things which render this argument unconvincing and weak.
First of all, the author provides no evidence about the cost-benefits of producing additional candy lines for expensive candies. He simply assumes that consumers will prefer to buy the expensive candies after 'economic boom' ends. Yet he provides no reason to beleive that this trend will definitely happen. What if economy remains on a high for next four-five years? If the company shifts focus on expensive candies and produces them in huge numbers, additional inventory and manufacturing costs will hamper the profitability of the company. The more they produce, the more they loose.
Secondly, the author presumes that the recent surge in sales was only because of the success of the candy in the taste test and that the trend will continue in the future. But he cites no evidence to validate this point. If recent boost in sales was only because of impulsive orders from a community or a school celebrating some festival, then the author's prediction is thwarted. The author assumes that linear growth will continue, for the candy has got the success. If this is not the case, the company's plan to add up more lines for additional lines is a fallacy.
Thirdly, the author has predicted consumer taste concerning the expensive candies when the economic boom ends. He cites that consumer will still fall for small luxury items, such as candies. Even if we assume at one point that this will happen, but we can not be assured that consumers will prefer Dolic candies only. Moreover, if competitors produce less expensive candies of the same quality, any day consumers prefer these candies and not Dolic's.
Finally, it can be concurred that the argument is not at all persuasive and substantial as it stands. It has many loopholes and presumptions, which fail to give a comprehensive picture of the argument. There is no reason to believe that the company will be better off producing more expensive candies rather than ordinary candies. The argument could have been more authorative and solid had the author considered aforementioned points.
