The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper:
“Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for more than 70 years. Although one foreign company
has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers—some
say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other
explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well.
Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads
typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track.”
The article states a plausible reason given by some people about the failure of foreign company to attract motorcyle X customers. The author of the article is reluctant to believe that the foreign company fails because their product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made my motorcycle X. The author thereafter suggests alternative reasons for the failure.
At first glance the author's alternative reasons make sense. But only upon careful examination the hidden shortcomings in the reasoning are visible. First, the author explains by giving a comparision that foreign cars are quieter yet they sell as least as well. This comparision of cars with motorcycle in itself is questionable. The target audience for cars and motorcycles are completely different and so is its requirements. A loud motorcycle can be seen as a style icon but a loud car may not be seen so. For example, the customers of Harley Davidson are very particular about the engine roar the motorcycle makes. But in the league of cars, quiter is considerd to be better.
Second, the author states that the advertisements for motorcycle X highlight features other than its noisiness. This seems logical but the lack of supporting facts and information renders the premise weak. It might be that the decision to by motorcycle X is more influenced by test driving it wherein the potential customer can evaluate the noisiness of the motorcycle, instead of television advertisements.
The argument can be strengthen if the author provides sufficient facts, for example, a survey conducted among motorcycle X customers to check what are the important features that they like to see in a motorcycle. The argument will be more logical if the author provides some information to show that indeed cars and motorcycles are comparable.
All in all, the premises provided by the author in the article fall short in pursuading the reader to believe that the reasons behind the failure of the foreign company to attract customers of motorcycle X are other than the noisiness of the vehicle.
“Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for more than 70 years. Although one foreign company
has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers—some
say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other
explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well.
Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads
typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track.”
The article states a plausible reason given by some people about the failure of foreign company to attract motorcyle X customers. The author of the article is reluctant to believe that the foreign company fails because their product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made my motorcycle X. The author thereafter suggests alternative reasons for the failure.
At first glance the author's alternative reasons make sense. But only upon careful examination the hidden shortcomings in the reasoning are visible. First, the author explains by giving a comparision that foreign cars are quieter yet they sell as least as well. This comparision of cars with motorcycle in itself is questionable. The target audience for cars and motorcycles are completely different and so is its requirements. A loud motorcycle can be seen as a style icon but a loud car may not be seen so. For example, the customers of Harley Davidson are very particular about the engine roar the motorcycle makes. But in the league of cars, quiter is considerd to be better.
Second, the author states that the advertisements for motorcycle X highlight features other than its noisiness. This seems logical but the lack of supporting facts and information renders the premise weak. It might be that the decision to by motorcycle X is more influenced by test driving it wherein the potential customer can evaluate the noisiness of the motorcycle, instead of television advertisements.
The argument can be strengthen if the author provides sufficient facts, for example, a survey conducted among motorcycle X customers to check what are the important features that they like to see in a motorcycle. The argument will be more logical if the author provides some information to show that indeed cars and motorcycles are comparable.
All in all, the premises provided by the author in the article fall short in pursuading the reader to believe that the reasons behind the failure of the foreign company to attract customers of motorcycle X are other than the noisiness of the vehicle.
