I have just three days til the test... and have left AWA til last minute! please rate my argument! Thank you very much.
The following appeared in a memorandum from the president of a company that makes shampoo:
“A widely publicized study claims that HR2, a chemical compound in our shampoo, can contribute to hair loss after prolonged use. This study, however, involved only 500 subjects. Furthermore, we have received no complaints from our customers during the past year, and some of our competitors actually use more HR2 per bottle of shampoo than we do. Therefore, we do not need to consider replacing the HR2 in our shampoo with a more expensive alternative.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The president of the company claims that the company does not need to replace the HR2 in its shampoo, due to the lack of complaints received, the fact that competitors’ products contain higher levels of HR2 and that a study which identified HR2’s potential to cause harm to humans had a sample size that was too small. However, the reasoning the president makes is misleading on several fronts.
Firstly, the president cites the sample size as too small to reach any meaningful conclusions. However, this can be misleading in several ways. Firstly, if the company had 500 customers and hence, all their customers were involved in the study, it represents a compelling case that the HR2 contributes to hair loss. As no indication of the relative size of the sample to the total customers of the company is given, the president is mistaken to dismiss outright the sample size as too small. Another way in which the sample size is mistakenly dismissed is that the sample of 500 subjects could have carried bias towards healthy individuals. For example, the study is likely to have yielded significantly different results if only healthy young adults with healthy hair were solely considered as opposed to the elderly who are more likely to be experiencing hair loss. As no information is provided regarding the demographics of the subjects, it cannot be determined whether the 500 subjects truly represent the company’s customer base. Therefore, the president is mistaken to dismiss outright the study’s sample size.
In addition, the president argues that because of the lack of complaints received, the company need not consider replacing HR2. However, this can be misleading in several ways. As the study cites, prolonged use of the shampoo can cause hair loss of users. For example, if a minimum of five years’ use is required for HR2 to come into effect and the time in which the shampoo existed was less, it would be impossible for the customer to tell whether hair loss was occurring. As no information is provided regarding the age of the product and the time required for HR2 to come into effect, the president is misled. Moreover, the lack of complaints may not be down to customers not complaining, but to the complaints failing to reach the company. For example, if the company has a poorly run, severely understaffed call center, it is less likely to receive the majority of complaints by the customers. Therefore, the lack of complaints does not necessarily mean any harm caused by HR2.
Finally, the president cites that as competitors use higher levels of HR2 in their products, there is no reason for his company to stop using HR2. However, the actual amount of HR2 may be irrelevant in determining the extent of harm caused by it, as simply the presence of HR2 itself may be enough to cause hair loss. Also, the president is mistaken in making this judgment as he justifies his action simply through citing the actions his competitors. After all, competitors may have acknowledged the results of the study and hence could be reacting accordingly to reduce usage of HR2 in future products. Hence, citing the actions of his competitors does not provide a valid reason for the company to not consider replacing HR2.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed in several ways, which severely weaken its validity. The sample size may in fact be representative of the company’s entire customer base, the lack of complaints may actually be down to a long period of time required for hair loss to occur after first use. In addition, simply citing the actions of his competitors is not a valid way of justifying the argument. Therefore, the argument is not valid.
The following appeared in a memorandum from the president of a company that makes shampoo:
“A widely publicized study claims that HR2, a chemical compound in our shampoo, can contribute to hair loss after prolonged use. This study, however, involved only 500 subjects. Furthermore, we have received no complaints from our customers during the past year, and some of our competitors actually use more HR2 per bottle of shampoo than we do. Therefore, we do not need to consider replacing the HR2 in our shampoo with a more expensive alternative.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The president of the company claims that the company does not need to replace the HR2 in its shampoo, due to the lack of complaints received, the fact that competitors’ products contain higher levels of HR2 and that a study which identified HR2’s potential to cause harm to humans had a sample size that was too small. However, the reasoning the president makes is misleading on several fronts.
Firstly, the president cites the sample size as too small to reach any meaningful conclusions. However, this can be misleading in several ways. Firstly, if the company had 500 customers and hence, all their customers were involved in the study, it represents a compelling case that the HR2 contributes to hair loss. As no indication of the relative size of the sample to the total customers of the company is given, the president is mistaken to dismiss outright the sample size as too small. Another way in which the sample size is mistakenly dismissed is that the sample of 500 subjects could have carried bias towards healthy individuals. For example, the study is likely to have yielded significantly different results if only healthy young adults with healthy hair were solely considered as opposed to the elderly who are more likely to be experiencing hair loss. As no information is provided regarding the demographics of the subjects, it cannot be determined whether the 500 subjects truly represent the company’s customer base. Therefore, the president is mistaken to dismiss outright the study’s sample size.
In addition, the president argues that because of the lack of complaints received, the company need not consider replacing HR2. However, this can be misleading in several ways. As the study cites, prolonged use of the shampoo can cause hair loss of users. For example, if a minimum of five years’ use is required for HR2 to come into effect and the time in which the shampoo existed was less, it would be impossible for the customer to tell whether hair loss was occurring. As no information is provided regarding the age of the product and the time required for HR2 to come into effect, the president is misled. Moreover, the lack of complaints may not be down to customers not complaining, but to the complaints failing to reach the company. For example, if the company has a poorly run, severely understaffed call center, it is less likely to receive the majority of complaints by the customers. Therefore, the lack of complaints does not necessarily mean any harm caused by HR2.
Finally, the president cites that as competitors use higher levels of HR2 in their products, there is no reason for his company to stop using HR2. However, the actual amount of HR2 may be irrelevant in determining the extent of harm caused by it, as simply the presence of HR2 itself may be enough to cause hair loss. Also, the president is mistaken in making this judgment as he justifies his action simply through citing the actions his competitors. After all, competitors may have acknowledged the results of the study and hence could be reacting accordingly to reduce usage of HR2 in future products. Hence, citing the actions of his competitors does not provide a valid reason for the company to not consider replacing HR2.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed in several ways, which severely weaken its validity. The sample size may in fact be representative of the company’s entire customer base, the lack of complaints may actually be down to a long period of time required for hair loss to occur after first use. In addition, simply citing the actions of his competitors is not a valid way of justifying the argument. Therefore, the argument is not valid.
