Can someone please just glance over my argument and give some point...please be honest in your opinion!!!
The following appeared as part of a campaign to sell advertising time on a local radio station to local businesses:
"The Cumquat Café began advertising on our local radio station this year and was delighted to see its business
increase by 10 percent over last year’s totals. Their success shows you how you can use radio advertising to make
your business more profitable."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In an attempt to sell the radio advertising time, the advertisement claims that radio advertising is guaranteed to improve the sales. To bolster it’s reasoning the advertisement provides evidence that the Cumquat Café was only able to increase its sales by 10 percent over last year’s sale because it advertised its products on the radio. On the face value the argument looks very convincing but has many loose ends because of which the argument falls apart in its current shape and form. The argument tends establish a very causal relationship rather than co-relation between advertisement and growth in sales.
Primarily, the author fails to consider if any business decision such as introduction of new product, change of hours of operation or introduction of new service -drive way counters, could have had an effect on the growth of sales. Moreover a very important reason the argument fails to consider is the difference in weather patterns, the city might have experienced an elongated winter which in turn could have caused increased consumption of coffee. The argument assumes that the grown in sale was a direct effect of advertisement
Secondly, the author generalizes the cause and effect on one product for every product and fails to analyze that coffee is a mass item whereas other items may not be. For example if a furniture company advertises on radio the result may differ significantly. People could have visited Cumquat café to try something different whereas people don’t visit furniture shops daily to try new furniture. Hence the arguments errs in it’s generalization. Similarly there are various kind of differences between each business hence we cannot safely assume that effects will be likewise.
In conclusion it would be imprudent on the business for a business to invent in radio advertisements solely on the basis of the evidence presented. To strengthen the conclusion it must be established that the radio advertisement was the principal cause of the increased business. Once it’s shown it must be analyzed if the nature of business is similar to Cumquat Café and if the business can expect the similar returns. Without the statements in question it will not be advisable to invest on radio advertisement.