GMAT Essays (AWA)

Analysis of an Argument

“Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for more than 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 than 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.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

The argument in the business section of the local newspaper listed above is flawed. The argument above assumes that there must be another reason for customers choosing to purchase Motorcycle X instead of the motorcycle manufactured by the foreign company besides the exceptionally loud noise. The basis for this argument is that foreign cars sell as well, despite being quieter than American-made cars. The argument also notes that Motorcycle X’s company highlights its durability and sleek lines instead of noisiness in its ads, as well as the fact that the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music featured in the ads rather than the engine-roar.

The first problem with the argument above is the assumption that customers will purchase motorcycles similarly to the way they would purchase cars. The customer base for cars tends to be much different than the customer base for motorcycles, as the two are completely different machines. A survey detailing the desires of people who purchase motorcycles would be particularly useful to validate this argument. If the motorcycle customer base tends to prefer louder motorcycles, the argument would be weakened.

The argument also makes a poor comparison of motorcycles to cars. It is common sense that cars are quieter in general than motorcycles. The assumption that customers have the same preferences in purchasing motorcycles and cars is absurd. Motorcycles are completely different than cars. A motorcycle rider is sitting on top of the engine and is certainly going to hear and feel the engine noise. An automobile driver is inside a car and typically won’t hear as loud of a noise from the engine. Assuming that the two machines are similar and customers will have similar preferences when purchasing flaws the argument.

Another flaw in the argument assumes that since the company that manufactures motorcycle X highlights features besides its noise, customers must not use noise as a determinant factor when they purchase. The argument fails to consider the possibility that the company is trying to attract new customers, who might not rank noise highly on their importance list, with these ads. Advertisements typically aren’t directed towards customers who already purchased or own a product. They are directed towards potential customers.

The argument assumes that the television ads that highlight the durability and sleek lines are the only types of ads that are used to advertise this product. However, the argument fails to consider other forms of advertisement. If radio, internet, or newspaper advertisements highlight the exceptionally loud noise of motorcycle X, the argument would be weakened. There is also a failure to mention “word-of-mouth” advertising and witnessing these motorcycles first hand. Harley Davidson is a distinct and popular brand of motorcycle known for its exceptionally loud noise among all its products. Many people can tell a motorcycle is a Harley Davidson solely by hearing the noise. If motorcycle X has the same effect on customers, they would not need to be convinced to purchase the motorcycle based on the noise factor.

All of these reasons above show how the argument is flawed. If the argument above listed evidence to counter these points, the argument in the newspaper would be stronger. A stronger argument would certainly include a survey of potential motorcycle customers showing their lack of preference for noise. It also would at least discuss all forms of advertisement and the goals of the advertisements. The argument above fails to take these points into account and is therefore weak.