The following appeared in a memorandum from the business planning department of Avia Airlines.
"Of all the cities in their region, Beaumont and Fletcher are showing the fastest growth in the number of new businesses. Therefore, Avia should establish a commuter route between them as a means of countering recent losses on its main passenger routes. And to make the commuter route more profitable from the outset, Avia should offer a 1/3 discount on tickets purchased within two days of the flight. Unlike tickets bought earlier, discount tickets will be nonrefundable, and so gain from their sale will be greater."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
---
Ticket prices and desired routes have been a hot topic for Airline passengers for decades. There are some who debate it and some who affirm it, some who want the best price while some who want the best facilities. In the preceding statement the author claims that a new route and discount policy will make sales better for Avira. Even though the author's argument may have some merit, it is largely based on poor reasoning that uses questionable premises and assumptions, and as such, based solely on the evidence given by the author, we cannot accept his argument.
The primary issue is with author's use of unsubstantiated premises. The author does not clealry define how business growth in Beaumont and Fletcher has any relationship between more air travel. The growth could involve people who prefer other forms of transportation, or do not travel at all. The distance between the two regions are also not specified. For example, many will prefer to go to New York from Canada by road if the distance is low, but in case of Los Angels, it cold be the otehr way around. The economy of these two regions also define how many people are willing to use expensive air travel if other cheaper forms of travel are available. The author also states that the losses from the previous routes can be countered by the new route without providing any logical explanation that relates to this reasoning.
In addition, there is no clear evidence if ticket prices of Avia is already over 1/3 higher than competitors. That would clearly not make the discount lucrative enough. There is also no evidentary support for conifrming travelers will even be interested in buying discounted tickets even if they were the lowest priced air tickets for this route. The further assumption that making discount tickets non-refundable is also not supported by any logic. Paasengers are used to getting refundable air tickets world wide, and in the world of business, schedule can always change in last minute. Providing such a barrier can actually make the whole dicount offer less preferred and result in a failed campaign.
Although the author's argument has many flaws, the entire idea of coming up with new routes and cheaper prices has some merits. He could however provide more information of Avia's competitors and the provide profile of its customers. Such links between the assumptions and premises could provide better possibility for acceptance by the readers.
In sum, the lack of proper reasoning and use of unproven statements renders the author's argument invalid. It lacks the details needed to have a conclusive point and we clearly cannot support him based on the information provided by this argument.
"Of all the cities in their region, Beaumont and Fletcher are showing the fastest growth in the number of new businesses. Therefore, Avia should establish a commuter route between them as a means of countering recent losses on its main passenger routes. And to make the commuter route more profitable from the outset, Avia should offer a 1/3 discount on tickets purchased within two days of the flight. Unlike tickets bought earlier, discount tickets will be nonrefundable, and so gain from their sale will be greater."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
---
Ticket prices and desired routes have been a hot topic for Airline passengers for decades. There are some who debate it and some who affirm it, some who want the best price while some who want the best facilities. In the preceding statement the author claims that a new route and discount policy will make sales better for Avira. Even though the author's argument may have some merit, it is largely based on poor reasoning that uses questionable premises and assumptions, and as such, based solely on the evidence given by the author, we cannot accept his argument.
The primary issue is with author's use of unsubstantiated premises. The author does not clealry define how business growth in Beaumont and Fletcher has any relationship between more air travel. The growth could involve people who prefer other forms of transportation, or do not travel at all. The distance between the two regions are also not specified. For example, many will prefer to go to New York from Canada by road if the distance is low, but in case of Los Angels, it cold be the otehr way around. The economy of these two regions also define how many people are willing to use expensive air travel if other cheaper forms of travel are available. The author also states that the losses from the previous routes can be countered by the new route without providing any logical explanation that relates to this reasoning.
In addition, there is no clear evidence if ticket prices of Avia is already over 1/3 higher than competitors. That would clearly not make the discount lucrative enough. There is also no evidentary support for conifrming travelers will even be interested in buying discounted tickets even if they were the lowest priced air tickets for this route. The further assumption that making discount tickets non-refundable is also not supported by any logic. Paasengers are used to getting refundable air tickets world wide, and in the world of business, schedule can always change in last minute. Providing such a barrier can actually make the whole dicount offer less preferred and result in a failed campaign.
Although the author's argument has many flaws, the entire idea of coming up with new routes and cheaper prices has some merits. He could however provide more information of Avia's competitors and the provide profile of its customers. Such links between the assumptions and premises could provide better possibility for acceptance by the readers.
In sum, the lack of proper reasoning and use of unproven statements renders the author's argument invalid. It lacks the details needed to have a conclusive point and we clearly cannot support him based on the information provided by this argument.
