ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a market research report examining consumer perceptions of a chain of clothing stores:
"A recent survey commissioned by the market research department of XY Gen Stores indicated a high level of recognition among consumers of the brand and the nature of the apparel sold in XY Gen Stores. However, the survey also indicated that approximately 60% of those surveyed that recognized the name of XY Gen Stores had never shopped at one of the company's stores. Because of this result, XY Gen Stores executives should launch a significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image and thereby bring new consumers into the stores.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The author argues that XY Gen stores should launch a significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image and thereby bring new consumers into the stores. This conclusion is based on the premise that a survey indicated high level of recognition of XY Gen brands among consumers but only 40 % of the people who recognised the brand ever shopped in the store. There are three major flaws in the arguement.
The author concludes that because 60 % of the people who recognise the brand name have never shopped at any of the company's stores, the store executives should launch a significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image and attract more customers. Here, the author fails to take into consideration that the customers might not be buying from these stores because of the high costs of the commodities. Only a particular percentage of people can afford shopping in the XY Gen stores.
The author talks about significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image. Here, when he mentions about changing the comapny's image, he contradicts the results of the recent survey according to which XY Gen Stores indicated a high level of recognition among consumers of the brand and the nature of the apparel sold in XY Gen Stores. So, changing the image might prove to be less beneficial for the company. Also, it is not clearly mentioned as to what marketting campaigns need to be carried out. If the new marketting strategies aim at targetting more people with less incomes by allowing discounts, the brand value of the company will be at risk.
Also according to the survey results, approximately 60% of those surveyed that recognized the name of XY Gen Stores had never shopped at any of the company's stores. It is unclear as to how many people constitute the 60 % mentioned above. There might be very few people, say 2000, who recognised the brand. 60 % of 2000 will be very few people who have not shopped at any of the company stores. So, launching a significant rebranding and marketing campaign based on vague results will not be a good idea.
The arguement is not cogent to me and has three major flaws that are the high prices of commodities, unclear marketting strategies and vague survey results. If the author can justify the above mentioned flaws or fill the gaps, the arguement will be better reasoned.
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Nuclear weapons are potentially more devastating than any other weapon in human history. We must stop pointing the nuclear gun at our own heads. The best way to lower the threat of nuclear war is for the nuclear capable nations, including the U.S., to lead by example and dismantle their own nuclear arsenals."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
Nuclear energy was discovered with aim of doing good for the world and the generations to come, but it has now become the biggest threat to mankind. Countries, for their selfish interests, have developed nuclear weapons under the name of ' defence strategies'. However,we all know that be it for waging a war or defending oneself, the use of nuclear weapons is devastating. I agree that to lower the threat of nuclear war, the nuclear capable nations, including the U.S., must lead by example and dismantle their own nuclear arsenals.
Dismantling all the nuclear arsenals is neccessary because even when one country is nuclear capable, it is automatically considered a threat to the other nations, and to lessen the danger, the other nations strive to develop nuclear weapons for defending themselves in the worst scenarios. What everyone fails to see is that this is an ongoing process, a chain, that must be broken from somewhere.
History, is a proof of the massive destruction nuclear weapons cause. The nuclear bomb blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the worst form of nuclear power the world has ever seen. Millions of people died and billions of money was lost. The after effects of the blasts are prevailent till date in terms of gene mutations that have been passed on from generations to generations.
Even, in the contemporary world countries like North Korea pose a major threat to the world because of their continued nuclear testing. The country, infact, threatened to wage a war too.
U.S. by far, is the srongest nation and is also nuclear capable. Understanding, the detrimental effects of nuclear arsenals, it has supported dismantling of nuclear weapons but has not yet taken any initiative. The developed countries have to give away their nuclear weapons first, because only then the developing nations will feel secure enough to do so.
International Organisations such as United Nations should strictly take on this agenda for the best of all nations. Countries should follow the example of India. Being a developing country, it has stopped nuclear testing long back.
The main idea is that there should be no war. But even if, there is a chance, it should be made sure that the destruction is the least. Hence, the best way to lower the threat of nuclear war is that the nuclear capable nations, including the U.S. dismantle their own nuclear arsenals.
The following appeared in a market research report examining consumer perceptions of a chain of clothing stores:
"A recent survey commissioned by the market research department of XY Gen Stores indicated a high level of recognition among consumers of the brand and the nature of the apparel sold in XY Gen Stores. However, the survey also indicated that approximately 60% of those surveyed that recognized the name of XY Gen Stores had never shopped at one of the company's stores. Because of this result, XY Gen Stores executives should launch a significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image and thereby bring new consumers into the stores.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The author argues that XY Gen stores should launch a significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image and thereby bring new consumers into the stores. This conclusion is based on the premise that a survey indicated high level of recognition of XY Gen brands among consumers but only 40 % of the people who recognised the brand ever shopped in the store. There are three major flaws in the arguement.
The author concludes that because 60 % of the people who recognise the brand name have never shopped at any of the company's stores, the store executives should launch a significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image and attract more customers. Here, the author fails to take into consideration that the customers might not be buying from these stores because of the high costs of the commodities. Only a particular percentage of people can afford shopping in the XY Gen stores.
The author talks about significant rebranding and marketing campaign to change the company's image. Here, when he mentions about changing the comapny's image, he contradicts the results of the recent survey according to which XY Gen Stores indicated a high level of recognition among consumers of the brand and the nature of the apparel sold in XY Gen Stores. So, changing the image might prove to be less beneficial for the company. Also, it is not clearly mentioned as to what marketting campaigns need to be carried out. If the new marketting strategies aim at targetting more people with less incomes by allowing discounts, the brand value of the company will be at risk.
Also according to the survey results, approximately 60% of those surveyed that recognized the name of XY Gen Stores had never shopped at any of the company's stores. It is unclear as to how many people constitute the 60 % mentioned above. There might be very few people, say 2000, who recognised the brand. 60 % of 2000 will be very few people who have not shopped at any of the company stores. So, launching a significant rebranding and marketing campaign based on vague results will not be a good idea.
The arguement is not cogent to me and has three major flaws that are the high prices of commodities, unclear marketting strategies and vague survey results. If the author can justify the above mentioned flaws or fill the gaps, the arguement will be better reasoned.
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Nuclear weapons are potentially more devastating than any other weapon in human history. We must stop pointing the nuclear gun at our own heads. The best way to lower the threat of nuclear war is for the nuclear capable nations, including the U.S., to lead by example and dismantle their own nuclear arsenals."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
Nuclear energy was discovered with aim of doing good for the world and the generations to come, but it has now become the biggest threat to mankind. Countries, for their selfish interests, have developed nuclear weapons under the name of ' defence strategies'. However,we all know that be it for waging a war or defending oneself, the use of nuclear weapons is devastating. I agree that to lower the threat of nuclear war, the nuclear capable nations, including the U.S., must lead by example and dismantle their own nuclear arsenals.
Dismantling all the nuclear arsenals is neccessary because even when one country is nuclear capable, it is automatically considered a threat to the other nations, and to lessen the danger, the other nations strive to develop nuclear weapons for defending themselves in the worst scenarios. What everyone fails to see is that this is an ongoing process, a chain, that must be broken from somewhere.
History, is a proof of the massive destruction nuclear weapons cause. The nuclear bomb blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the worst form of nuclear power the world has ever seen. Millions of people died and billions of money was lost. The after effects of the blasts are prevailent till date in terms of gene mutations that have been passed on from generations to generations.
Even, in the contemporary world countries like North Korea pose a major threat to the world because of their continued nuclear testing. The country, infact, threatened to wage a war too.
U.S. by far, is the srongest nation and is also nuclear capable. Understanding, the detrimental effects of nuclear arsenals, it has supported dismantling of nuclear weapons but has not yet taken any initiative. The developed countries have to give away their nuclear weapons first, because only then the developing nations will feel secure enough to do so.
International Organisations such as United Nations should strictly take on this agenda for the best of all nations. Countries should follow the example of India. Being a developing country, it has stopped nuclear testing long back.
The main idea is that there should be no war. But even if, there is a chance, it should be made sure that the destruction is the least. Hence, the best way to lower the threat of nuclear war is that the nuclear capable nations, including the U.S. dismantle their own nuclear arsenals.
