"Studies suggest that an average coffee drinker's consumption of coffee increases with age, from age 10 to 60. Even after age 60, coffee consumption remains high. The average cola drinker's consumption of cola, however, declines with increasing age. Both of these trends have remained stable for the past 40 years. Given that the number of older adults will significantly increase as the population ages over the next 20 years, it follows that the demand for coffee will increase and the demand for cola will decrease during this period. We should, therefore, consider transferring our investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee."
In this argument, it states that we should invest on Early Bird Coffee rather than Cola Loca as the number of elderly population will significantly increase in next 20 years and older people consume more coffee than younger ones do. This statement is based on some studies, between age of 10 to 60, have shown that coffee consumption increases proportionally with the age and vice versa with cola. Unfortunately, this article is supported by skewed and lofy assumptions that lead to significantly flawed conclusion.
First, this article lacks details of how the studies have performed. There are lot of factors, which could possibly affect people from drinking coffee such as health conditions, gender, religion, diet and etc. For example, people with heart disease or arrhythmia should not consume caffeine as it disturbs heart rhythm. Furthermore, recent diet trend in order to lose weight, some people only drink coffee throughout the day instead of water. All these factors should have been accounted as fundamental part of the studies to avoid faulty outcomes.
Second, it is absolutely common sense to see more of young people drinking cola in comparison with coffee. In fact, cola companies have been targeting younger people over elderly for decades as many eminent researches suggest that cola degrades calcium in bones, which could lead to low-bone density and high risk of fractures. Therefore, cola companies have been utilising their budgets to capture the young ones while coffee companies have been advertising towards the older people.
Finally, the biggest mistake of the statement as well as its greatest supporting assumption is that older population will significantly grow in next 20 years. So is the young generation. It will be absolutely pointless of the investment if there will actually be the same ratio of young and old people in the future. Significant profits will be lost by not targeting those young ones by then.
To sum up, the outcome of the studies may be correct. However, it is inevitable to obtain substantial researches that bypass everyone's pre-existing perception or myth that cola is for young and coffee is for old people. Plus, proper statistical evaluation of future population is vital key of making the decision. Thus, the author's argument is explicitly flawed, supported by poor quality evidence. If the author insists to support coffee, my small piece of advice would be start investing on coffee advertisement in order to target variety range consumers rather than just considering one old generation.
In this argument, it states that we should invest on Early Bird Coffee rather than Cola Loca as the number of elderly population will significantly increase in next 20 years and older people consume more coffee than younger ones do. This statement is based on some studies, between age of 10 to 60, have shown that coffee consumption increases proportionally with the age and vice versa with cola. Unfortunately, this article is supported by skewed and lofy assumptions that lead to significantly flawed conclusion.
First, this article lacks details of how the studies have performed. There are lot of factors, which could possibly affect people from drinking coffee such as health conditions, gender, religion, diet and etc. For example, people with heart disease or arrhythmia should not consume caffeine as it disturbs heart rhythm. Furthermore, recent diet trend in order to lose weight, some people only drink coffee throughout the day instead of water. All these factors should have been accounted as fundamental part of the studies to avoid faulty outcomes.
Second, it is absolutely common sense to see more of young people drinking cola in comparison with coffee. In fact, cola companies have been targeting younger people over elderly for decades as many eminent researches suggest that cola degrades calcium in bones, which could lead to low-bone density and high risk of fractures. Therefore, cola companies have been utilising their budgets to capture the young ones while coffee companies have been advertising towards the older people.
Finally, the biggest mistake of the statement as well as its greatest supporting assumption is that older population will significantly grow in next 20 years. So is the young generation. It will be absolutely pointless of the investment if there will actually be the same ratio of young and old people in the future. Significant profits will be lost by not targeting those young ones by then.
To sum up, the outcome of the studies may be correct. However, it is inevitable to obtain substantial researches that bypass everyone's pre-existing perception or myth that cola is for young and coffee is for old people. Plus, proper statistical evaluation of future population is vital key of making the decision. Thus, the author's argument is explicitly flawed, supported by poor quality evidence. If the author insists to support coffee, my small piece of advice would be start investing on coffee advertisement in order to target variety range consumers rather than just considering one old generation.
