The following appeared in a memorandum from the director of marketing for a pharmaceutical company. "According to a survey of 5,000 urban residents, the prevalence of stress headaches increases with educational level, so that stress headaches occur most often among people with graduate-school degrees. It is well established that, nationally, higher educational levels usually correspond with higher levels of income. Therefore, in marketing our new pain remedy, Omnilixir, we should send free samples primarily to graduate students and to people with graduate degrees, and we should concentrate on advertising in professional journals rather than in general-interest magazines."
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 marketing director of the pharmaceutical company argues that the incidents of stress headaches and income levels increase as the level of education attainment increases. Therefore, he proposes, the company should market Omnilixir only to those with graduate degrees. The author's argument is seems sound if taken at its surface value. However, upon closer scrutiny, it is clear that the marketing director's argument demonstrates a fine example of colossal leap of faith and extremely poor reasoning.
First, the argument readily assumes that stress headaches and educational level are causally related. Assuming that the results of survey are unbiased and representative, the only thing one can deduce from the given information is that incidents of stress headaches and level of education are correlated. However, by assuming that correlation provides causation the director of marketing commits a logical fallacy.
Secondly, the marketing director basis his argument on the unfound assumption that higher the educational attainment higher the income levels. In the argument above no evidence is provided to support this assumption. On the other hand one can think of many examples where this assumption will not hold. For example, those holding only a bachelors degree but working full-time earn more than more educated full-time PHD students.
Thirdly, marketing strategy proposed by the director of marketing is based on assumption that highly- educated people read professional journals. One fallacy of this line of argument is the presumption that highly educated people do not have any interest in popular literature and thus do not general-interest magazines like Reader's Digest, Times and so on. Another fallacy is in assuming that all highly-educated people read professional journals; it is like assuming all students of economics read the Economist.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the above mentioned reasons and therefore is unconvincing. The argument can be strengthened considerably if the author mentioned the reasons for his assumption and the facts to back them up with. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
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 marketing director of the pharmaceutical company argues that the incidents of stress headaches and income levels increase as the level of education attainment increases. Therefore, he proposes, the company should market Omnilixir only to those with graduate degrees. The author's argument is seems sound if taken at its surface value. However, upon closer scrutiny, it is clear that the marketing director's argument demonstrates a fine example of colossal leap of faith and extremely poor reasoning.
First, the argument readily assumes that stress headaches and educational level are causally related. Assuming that the results of survey are unbiased and representative, the only thing one can deduce from the given information is that incidents of stress headaches and level of education are correlated. However, by assuming that correlation provides causation the director of marketing commits a logical fallacy.
Secondly, the marketing director basis his argument on the unfound assumption that higher the educational attainment higher the income levels. In the argument above no evidence is provided to support this assumption. On the other hand one can think of many examples where this assumption will not hold. For example, those holding only a bachelors degree but working full-time earn more than more educated full-time PHD students.
Thirdly, marketing strategy proposed by the director of marketing is based on assumption that highly- educated people read professional journals. One fallacy of this line of argument is the presumption that highly educated people do not have any interest in popular literature and thus do not general-interest magazines like Reader's Digest, Times and so on. Another fallacy is in assuming that all highly-educated people read professional journals; it is like assuming all students of economics read the Economist.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the above mentioned reasons and therefore is unconvincing. The argument can be strengthened considerably if the author mentioned the reasons for his assumption and the facts to back them up with. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
