The following appeared in an editorial in a business magazine.
"Although the sales of Whirlwind video games have declined over the past two years, a recent survey of video-game players suggests that this sales trend is about to be reversed. The survey asked video-game players what features they thought were most important in a video game. According to the survey, players prefer games that provide lifelike graphics, which require the most up-to-date computers. Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. It follows, then, that the sales of Whirlwind video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months."
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the sales of Whirlwind’s video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months. To justify the conclusion, the arguer cites the survey which indicated the declined sales of Whirlwind’s video games in the past two years would reverse itself and the video games players’ preference is that games with realistic graphics requiring the most up-to-date computers. The arguer then points out that Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
Firstly, the survey on which the argument depends is not statistically credible. It didn’t provide the respondents’ percentage in the overall population of videogames enthusiasts; in that case, perhaps the respondents’ preference to realistic graphics cannot represent the most videogames enthusiasts’. In addition, the survey didn’t mention the age of the respondents while the ad campaign of Whirlwind directs at people 10 to 25 years old, so I can assume that the 10 to 25 age-group will not be interested in the new games Whirlwind introduced, for the age-group may not like the game with realistic graphics as the respondents like.
Secondly, the argument rests on the assumption that the increase of the Whirlwind’s sales is attributable to the agency that Whirlwind’s introduction of new games and ad campaign. Yet it is entirely possible that the increase is due to factors such as successful market operation or great management, which the arguer didn’t mention at all. In addition, perhaps the agency that Whirlwind’s introduction of new games and ad campaign cannot lead to the sales increase, for the market is possible fraught with lifelike videogames or the price of Whirlwind’s new games are prohibitively high or the number of the owners of up-to-date computers required for new games is low. Since the arguer has not correctly identified the cause of the sales increase, I cannot be convinced that Whirlwind’s agency will lead its sales to reverse, let alone dramatically.
To sum up, the arguer should provide more evidence to support that the videogames enthusiasts in 10 to 25 years old would be interested in Whirlwind’s new games, and the arguer should concern more factors lead to Whirlwind’s sales increase before he draws the prediction.