Argument:
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.
"Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter that similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track."
Analysis:
Motorcycle X is an old company manufacturing products for over 70 years, although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and selling it for less, still they are unable to attract motorcycle X's customers. Foreign cars are quieter that American cars but they sell atleast well. TV advertisements also focus on the durability and sleek lines on Motorcycle X rather than the noise. In the preceding statement the author claims that" some say because its products lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X" I.e because of this the foreign company is unable to attract motorcycle X customers. Though this claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue in authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Firstly, Motorcylce X is an old company, so due to which it may have loyal customers and therefore, the foreign company is unable to sell its products. Secondly, television advertisements may be responsible for attracting customers and the quality provided by motorcycle X may be better as compared to the foreign company. The authors premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support, and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Firstly, since some people say that loud noise of motorcycle X attracts its customers, it is not to be assumed that everyone is attracted by this feature and this is the reason the foreign company is unable to attract motorcycle X customers. Secondly, If foreign cars tend to be quieter, does not mean that motorcycles of foreign company are to be sold because they are quieter. The feature of motorcycles is different from cars and they cannot be compared in relation to their sales. Also, it may be possible that Tv advertisements may be attracting customers and the foreign company may not be advertising as motorcycle X is. The author weakens his argument, by failing to provide explication of links between" the selling of foreign cars and foreign motorcycles" he assumes exists.
While the author does have some key issues in his premises and assumptions, it is not to say that the whole argument is without base. The author can provide some examples to support his argument, i.e., he can give more details of the sentence that he states" but there must be some other explanation. Also, the foreign company can advertise about the features it provides in his motorcycles and why it is better than motorcycle X. Though there are several issues with authors reasoning at present, with research and clarification he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the authors illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions, that render his conclusion invalid. The author should give examples as to why the foreign company is unable to sell its products. Also, the argument should mention the reason for comparing the noise of cars with the noise of motorcycles. If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumption, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.
"Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say because its product lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter that similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine-roar on the sound track."
Analysis:
Motorcycle X is an old company manufacturing products for over 70 years, although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and selling it for less, still they are unable to attract motorcycle X's customers. Foreign cars are quieter that American cars but they sell atleast well. TV advertisements also focus on the durability and sleek lines on Motorcycle X rather than the noise. In the preceding statement the author claims that" some say because its products lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X" I.e because of this the foreign company is unable to attract motorcycle X customers. Though this claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue in authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Firstly, Motorcylce X is an old company, so due to which it may have loyal customers and therefore, the foreign company is unable to sell its products. Secondly, television advertisements may be responsible for attracting customers and the quality provided by motorcycle X may be better as compared to the foreign company. The authors premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support, and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Firstly, since some people say that loud noise of motorcycle X attracts its customers, it is not to be assumed that everyone is attracted by this feature and this is the reason the foreign company is unable to attract motorcycle X customers. Secondly, If foreign cars tend to be quieter, does not mean that motorcycles of foreign company are to be sold because they are quieter. The feature of motorcycles is different from cars and they cannot be compared in relation to their sales. Also, it may be possible that Tv advertisements may be attracting customers and the foreign company may not be advertising as motorcycle X is. The author weakens his argument, by failing to provide explication of links between" the selling of foreign cars and foreign motorcycles" he assumes exists.
While the author does have some key issues in his premises and assumptions, it is not to say that the whole argument is without base. The author can provide some examples to support his argument, i.e., he can give more details of the sentence that he states" but there must be some other explanation. Also, the foreign company can advertise about the features it provides in his motorcycles and why it is better than motorcycle X. Though there are several issues with authors reasoning at present, with research and clarification he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the authors illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions, that render his conclusion invalid. The author should give examples as to why the foreign company is unable to sell its products. Also, the argument should mention the reason for comparing the noise of cars with the noise of motorcycles. If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumption, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
