Hi,

I've given a shot at analyzing an argument. It would be nice to know the pros and cons of my approach. Bouquets and brick-bats are welcome! A rating would be an icing on the cake.

Thanks in advance!
[email protected]

ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a print advertisement for a dietary supplement:

"According to a recent study, professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain, a new protein supplement, over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. Since Train & Gain is now available without prescription at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to professional athletes. Try Train & Gain today and you too can boost your strength and achieve professional-level performance in just a few months."

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 argument states that Train & Gain, a new supplement, can help boost the strength and achieve a professional-level performance in just a few months. There are holes in this argument, which would not hold fort under proper analysis.

First, the argument uses the support of a recent study, which states that professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. This study does not delve into the details such as the exercise regimen that the body builders subjected themselves to, while trying the product. Did they increase their exercise routine or did they maintain the same level of exercise during the trial period? Did they use any other supplement in conjunction with this new supplement? Changes in the exercise routines of body builders, or a combination of an older supplement with this new one, could have lead to the increase in measured strength. This would mean that there is minimal or no correlation between the usage of the supplement and the results seen by the body builders.

Moreover, the argument states that Train & Gain is available without prescription at all major pharmacies and that superior results are no longer limited to professional athletes. The inherent assumption here is that most of the population have access to major pharmacies. What about areas which do not have any major pharmacy? People in such areas are directly being excluded. Hence, the sales of the supplement is inadvertently limited to those areas. Not many would go out of their way to find such a pharmacy, just to get hold of this new supplement.

Finally, the argument assumes that the person reading the advertisement is a health nut looking for ways to improve his or her strength. While there are are people who are fitness freaks, what percent of the population do they pertain to? Not everyone is a body builder and a 20% improvement in performance is probably nothing to boast of. Fitness freaks would probably be looking for much higher strength improvements, if any.

In conclusion, the argument fails to specify the target audience to which it is catering to, does not provide details of exercise regimen that was followed during the trial period, and assumes that the layman would be willing to hit the gym in order to increase muscle strength. None of these are supported with clear and concise examples, which could have helped the target audience to make an educated guess on whether the new supplement would benefit in any way.