The following appeared as part of the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm.
"Studies suggest that an average coffee drinker's consumption of coffee increases with age, from age 10 through age 60. Even after age 60, coffee consumption remains high. The average cola drinker's consumption of cola, however, declines with increasing age. Both of these trends have remained stable for the past 40 years. Given that the number of older adults will significantly increase as the population ages over the next 20 years, it follows that the demand for coffee will increase and the demand for cola will decrease during this period. We should, therefore, consider transferring our investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
-----------------------
The argument states that because the trend has been that the consumption of coffee increases with age and that of cola decreases, we should switch investments from cola to coffee. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it relies on. The conclusion is extreme and based on a leap of faith rather than logical deduction. As such, the argument remains weak, flawed, and unconvincing.
The first claim made by the author is the study suggesting an average coffee consumption increases with age from 10 to 60, where as that of cola declines. This claim itself does not substantiate the author's conclusion for several reasons. For example, the total consumption of coffee and cola is not stated. It could very well be that, even after the full decline, the total consumption of cola is still higher than that of cola. In which case the market size of cola remains larger, and we should not switch investment. Also, more important of information would be the trend of total consumption of the products rather than the trend in age; if coffee consumption is increaseing with respect to consumer age but the total consumption as a whole is decreasing, it means that the market size is shrinking.
The second point the author makes is that the trend remained stable for 40 years. The implicit conclusion here is that the trend will continue in the future. There is absolutely no guarantee that this will be the case. For instance, a new study suggesting the health problem caused by caffeine intake might very well cause the decline of coffee consumption. Also, Cola Loca may invent new recipe for a next mega hit softdrink. With little information provided in the argument, the implicit conclusion does not hold.
Finally, the author claims that the number of older adults will increase as the population ages over next 20 years, hence the demand of coffee will increase and that of cola will decrease. However, this conclusion is logically flawed. Surely the current 20 year old will become 40 year old after 20 years, but current newborn babies will become 20 as well. In fact, since the birth rate is increasing and population growth is positive, there will be more younger generation than the old. Therefore, the correct inference is that the demand of cola will increase. Unless the author provides additional evidence that supports his conclusion, the claim renders not only meaningless but also misleading.
In conclusion, the conclusion drawn by the author is extreme and unsubstantiated. The author could strengthen his argument by providing more relevant information such as the study of trend of overall consumption of the products and population growth by generation. Until such information is provided, one is left with an impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive claim.
"Studies suggest that an average coffee drinker's consumption of coffee increases with age, from age 10 through age 60. Even after age 60, coffee consumption remains high. The average cola drinker's consumption of cola, however, declines with increasing age. Both of these trends have remained stable for the past 40 years. Given that the number of older adults will significantly increase as the population ages over the next 20 years, it follows that the demand for coffee will increase and the demand for cola will decrease during this period. We should, therefore, consider transferring our investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
-----------------------
The argument states that because the trend has been that the consumption of coffee increases with age and that of cola decreases, we should switch investments from cola to coffee. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it relies on. The conclusion is extreme and based on a leap of faith rather than logical deduction. As such, the argument remains weak, flawed, and unconvincing.
The first claim made by the author is the study suggesting an average coffee consumption increases with age from 10 to 60, where as that of cola declines. This claim itself does not substantiate the author's conclusion for several reasons. For example, the total consumption of coffee and cola is not stated. It could very well be that, even after the full decline, the total consumption of cola is still higher than that of cola. In which case the market size of cola remains larger, and we should not switch investment. Also, more important of information would be the trend of total consumption of the products rather than the trend in age; if coffee consumption is increaseing with respect to consumer age but the total consumption as a whole is decreasing, it means that the market size is shrinking.
The second point the author makes is that the trend remained stable for 40 years. The implicit conclusion here is that the trend will continue in the future. There is absolutely no guarantee that this will be the case. For instance, a new study suggesting the health problem caused by caffeine intake might very well cause the decline of coffee consumption. Also, Cola Loca may invent new recipe for a next mega hit softdrink. With little information provided in the argument, the implicit conclusion does not hold.
Finally, the author claims that the number of older adults will increase as the population ages over next 20 years, hence the demand of coffee will increase and that of cola will decrease. However, this conclusion is logically flawed. Surely the current 20 year old will become 40 year old after 20 years, but current newborn babies will become 20 as well. In fact, since the birth rate is increasing and population growth is positive, there will be more younger generation than the old. Therefore, the correct inference is that the demand of cola will increase. Unless the author provides additional evidence that supports his conclusion, the claim renders not only meaningless but also misleading.
In conclusion, the conclusion drawn by the author is extreme and unsubstantiated. The author could strengthen his argument by providing more relevant information such as the study of trend of overall consumption of the products and population growth by generation. Until such information is provided, one is left with an impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive claim.
