-
Xulei
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:39 pm
- Location: Madrid (Spain)
The following appeared as part of a promotional campaign to sell advertising space in the Daily Gazzete to grocery stores in the Marston area:
‘Advertising reduced price of selected grocery items in the Daily Gazzete will help you increase your sales. Considering the results of a study conducted last month. Thirty sale items from a store in downtown Marston were advertised in The Gazzete for four days. Each time one or more of the 30 items was purchased, clerks asked whether the shopper had read the ad. Two thirds of the shoppers asked answered in the affirmative. Furthermore, more than half the customer who answered in the affirmative spent over 100$ at the store.’
The argument above concludes that advertising reduced price items in the Daily Gazzete will help grocers to increase their sales. However, in the argument there are several flaws that weaken the argument.
Firstly, the conclusion states that advertising in the Daily Gazzete will help for increasing grocer’s sales. However, the argument doesn’t provide any evidence of piece of information supporting it. Instead, it provides studies about the shoppers who read the ad and the amount of money they spent in the shopping, but not about the increase of sales.
Secondly, in the study customers were asked whether they read the ad or not. And two thirds of them answered affirmative. However, we don’t know the reason shoppers bought the item. It is very likely that they would bought them with or without the sales. Therefore, it is unknown how many customers bought the items because they have read the ad.
Thirdly, the argument also states that that more than half of the shoppers who bought at least one of these items spent over 100$. However, the percentage of money spent in the advertised items is unknown. Moreover, here the author assumes that advertised items are cheap. It is possible, that the items with price reduction are 99$. Thereby any customer that by any other item that price is more than 1$ would have spent more than 100$.
Summarizing, the argument is not strong enough to support the conclusion given that there are many pieces of information missed.
‘Advertising reduced price of selected grocery items in the Daily Gazzete will help you increase your sales. Considering the results of a study conducted last month. Thirty sale items from a store in downtown Marston were advertised in The Gazzete for four days. Each time one or more of the 30 items was purchased, clerks asked whether the shopper had read the ad. Two thirds of the shoppers asked answered in the affirmative. Furthermore, more than half the customer who answered in the affirmative spent over 100$ at the store.’
The argument above concludes that advertising reduced price items in the Daily Gazzete will help grocers to increase their sales. However, in the argument there are several flaws that weaken the argument.
Firstly, the conclusion states that advertising in the Daily Gazzete will help for increasing grocer’s sales. However, the argument doesn’t provide any evidence of piece of information supporting it. Instead, it provides studies about the shoppers who read the ad and the amount of money they spent in the shopping, but not about the increase of sales.
Secondly, in the study customers were asked whether they read the ad or not. And two thirds of them answered affirmative. However, we don’t know the reason shoppers bought the item. It is very likely that they would bought them with or without the sales. Therefore, it is unknown how many customers bought the items because they have read the ad.
Thirdly, the argument also states that that more than half of the shoppers who bought at least one of these items spent over 100$. However, the percentage of money spent in the advertised items is unknown. Moreover, here the author assumes that advertised items are cheap. It is possible, that the items with price reduction are 99$. Thereby any customer that by any other item that price is more than 1$ would have spent more than 100$.
Summarizing, the argument is not strong enough to support the conclusion given that there are many pieces of information missed.
