"The Easy Credit Company would gain an advantage over competing credit card services if we werer to donate a portion of the proceeds from the use of our cards to a well known environmental organization in exchange for the use of its symbol or logo on our card. Since a recent poll shows that a large percentage of the public is concerned about environmental issues, this policy would attract new customers, increase use among existing customers, and enable us to charge interest rates that are higher than the lowest ones available."
In the argument, the executive concluded that Easy Credit Company would gain advantages over competitors if the company were to donate a portion of profits to an environmental organization by using the organization's logo, and therefore, attract new customers. As a result of such action, Easy Credit Company could charge its customers higher interest rates. To support his conclusion, the executive points that out a large percentage of public is concerned about environmental issues and using an environmental organization's logo would help Easy Credit Company to attract more customers. The executive also assumes that in exchange for the proceeds the company donates, Easy Credit Company can charge its customers a higher interest rate. At first glance, the executive's argument appears to have merit, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. We do not have to look very far to see the invalidity of the argument. This argument is problematic for the following reasons.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premise. The author's premises lack any legitimate evidence and render his conclusion unacceptable. The author claims that since the public is concerned about environment issues, by using an environmental organization's logo on its card, the card company can take advantages of its competitors and mark higher interest rates on its card. This premise did not provide any evidences to what degree the customers would be interested to use the credit cards and be willing to allow Easy Credit to charge a higher interest rate to support its environmental organization.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author unfairly assumes that by using an environmental corporation logo, it can win new customers over competitors. This assumption is flawed in the sense that there is no evidence in the argument to support this claim. The arguer fails to provide linkage between the environmental organization and its customers. The arguer did not take close examination on what percentage of public is actually interested in a credit card with the environmental organization. The author also made assumption that it can charge a higher interest rate without losing current customers. The author failed to consider the point of view from its current customers.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premise and assumption, that is not say that the entire argument is without base. The author could strength his argument by providing necessary evidences such as survey to support that a great percentage of public are willing to support the product even if the interest rates are higher and that the percentage of current customers that are interested in such product. The author could also provide information on how to retain existing customers once the rates increase. If author can provide the necessary information mentioned above, then he can significantly strengthen his argument.
In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. If the author's attempt is to convince the reader's mind that his plan will work, he needs provide information and evidences mentioned above and also clarify other factors that may affect the plan. Without that information, I am not convinced that his conclusion will work.
In the argument, the executive concluded that Easy Credit Company would gain advantages over competitors if the company were to donate a portion of profits to an environmental organization by using the organization's logo, and therefore, attract new customers. As a result of such action, Easy Credit Company could charge its customers higher interest rates. To support his conclusion, the executive points that out a large percentage of public is concerned about environmental issues and using an environmental organization's logo would help Easy Credit Company to attract more customers. The executive also assumes that in exchange for the proceeds the company donates, Easy Credit Company can charge its customers a higher interest rate. At first glance, the executive's argument appears to have merit, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. We do not have to look very far to see the invalidity of the argument. This argument is problematic for the following reasons.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premise. The author's premises lack any legitimate evidence and render his conclusion unacceptable. The author claims that since the public is concerned about environment issues, by using an environmental organization's logo on its card, the card company can take advantages of its competitors and mark higher interest rates on its card. This premise did not provide any evidences to what degree the customers would be interested to use the credit cards and be willing to allow Easy Credit to charge a higher interest rate to support its environmental organization.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author unfairly assumes that by using an environmental corporation logo, it can win new customers over competitors. This assumption is flawed in the sense that there is no evidence in the argument to support this claim. The arguer fails to provide linkage between the environmental organization and its customers. The arguer did not take close examination on what percentage of public is actually interested in a credit card with the environmental organization. The author also made assumption that it can charge a higher interest rate without losing current customers. The author failed to consider the point of view from its current customers.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premise and assumption, that is not say that the entire argument is without base. The author could strength his argument by providing necessary evidences such as survey to support that a great percentage of public are willing to support the product even if the interest rates are higher and that the percentage of current customers that are interested in such product. The author could also provide information on how to retain existing customers once the rates increase. If author can provide the necessary information mentioned above, then he can significantly strengthen his argument.
In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. If the author's attempt is to convince the reader's mind that his plan will work, he needs provide information and evidences mentioned above and also clarify other factors that may affect the plan. Without that information, I am not convinced that his conclusion will work.
