Analysis of Argument
The following was used as part of an internet advertising company's appeal to businesses: Furniture Depot employed our internet advertising company to help. Since then its sales increased by 10% over last year's totals. Furniture Depot's success demonstrates how using our internet services can increase your profitability.
==========================================
The appeal of the advertising company, citing example of their customer Furniture Depot, claims that employing their online advertising services can increase profitability. The argument is not well-reasoned and in the following discussion, I will outline few of the questionable assumptions.
Firstly, the reason for the sales growth reported by Furniture Depot is not made clear. It is possible that Furniture Depot might have registered 10% increase in their sales over last year, even without employing the internet advertising company. Last year's sales might have been low because of a recession in the market and the current 10% sales growth could just be a recovery from that slump. The sales growth could have been contributed by an improved product mix or any factor other than the online advertising.
Secondly, the contribution of the appellant is not perspicuous in the evidence. Even if we assume that this sales growth has been achieved primarily because of the advertising, it is possible that Furniture Depot might have been advertising through other media by employing some other company and the current 10% sales growth could have been contributed by those advertising channels more than online advertising. It is also not clear that Furniture Depot did not employ any online advertising company other than the one in discussion.
Thirdly, the appeal discusses impact of the online advertising on the sales growth of Furniture Depot and then makes a claim to increase profitability. The advertising company will charge its customers for the service provided and that will increase the cost incurred by its customers. The increase in profitability will be possible only if Furniture Depot can charge more from the end-customers. It is not clear why end-customer will pay higher price to Furniture Depot and how internet services play a role in helping Furniture Depot convince its customers.
The argument is logically flawed and the author should provide more evidentiary support such as: why Furniture Depot employed internet advertising company, what value internet services brought to Furniture Depot, how internet advertising is more effective than other advertising and how internet services helped Furniture Depot ask higher price from its customers. Adding the aforementioned to the argument will make more convincing an appeal to business customers of internet advertising company.
The following was used as part of an internet advertising company's appeal to businesses: Furniture Depot employed our internet advertising company to help. Since then its sales increased by 10% over last year's totals. Furniture Depot's success demonstrates how using our internet services can increase your profitability.
==========================================
The appeal of the advertising company, citing example of their customer Furniture Depot, claims that employing their online advertising services can increase profitability. The argument is not well-reasoned and in the following discussion, I will outline few of the questionable assumptions.
Firstly, the reason for the sales growth reported by Furniture Depot is not made clear. It is possible that Furniture Depot might have registered 10% increase in their sales over last year, even without employing the internet advertising company. Last year's sales might have been low because of a recession in the market and the current 10% sales growth could just be a recovery from that slump. The sales growth could have been contributed by an improved product mix or any factor other than the online advertising.
Secondly, the contribution of the appellant is not perspicuous in the evidence. Even if we assume that this sales growth has been achieved primarily because of the advertising, it is possible that Furniture Depot might have been advertising through other media by employing some other company and the current 10% sales growth could have been contributed by those advertising channels more than online advertising. It is also not clear that Furniture Depot did not employ any online advertising company other than the one in discussion.
Thirdly, the appeal discusses impact of the online advertising on the sales growth of Furniture Depot and then makes a claim to increase profitability. The advertising company will charge its customers for the service provided and that will increase the cost incurred by its customers. The increase in profitability will be possible only if Furniture Depot can charge more from the end-customers. It is not clear why end-customer will pay higher price to Furniture Depot and how internet services play a role in helping Furniture Depot convince its customers.
The argument is logically flawed and the author should provide more evidentiary support such as: why Furniture Depot employed internet advertising company, what value internet services brought to Furniture Depot, how internet advertising is more effective than other advertising and how internet services helped Furniture Depot ask higher price from its customers. Adding the aforementioned to the argument will make more convincing an appeal to business customers of internet advertising company.
