5f 11.30 作业argument 111

anita840808UID: 2431016

WORDS: 388          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-12-1 15:55:14

In the memo, the vice president of marketing at Dura-Sock asserts that the generalization of the Endure manufactures is wasting money of company and the products should be stop selling in search for profits, based on the recent discovery from study that the new Dura-sock is likely to waiting for their owners and most consumers prefer the socks' stylish appearance and availability in many colors. The arguer fails to convince readers due to several  lapses of many areas in logical thinking.
Firstly, the arguer draws such a conclusion that the product is not suitable to be generalized anymore on the basis of several studies mentioned in the memo. Without detailed and warranted information on the survey, the result is entirely to be questionable. A valid and effective study should possess the feature of credibility, generalizability and objectivity. For example, whether the survey employed sufficient participants to enable us make statistics for a definite data result and whether the results are eliminate from the consumers' biases? Unfortunately, the arguer didn't provide us with any clue to these evidences. Absent the validity of these information, the study mentioned in the argument can not be evaluated as scientific and sustainable.
Secondly, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy. Different places have different practical situations, one product ,well received in the cities of northeastern United States, is entirely possible to be not so popular as the reflection in another states. Therefore, we can not simply decide whether the products should be generalized or not according to the purchasing status quo of other places.
Last but not least, the arguer indicates that the company should shut the selling window of the Endure-socks because it may bog down the selling of varieties of other socks in this brand. The statement is inconclusive and groundless. Hegel said, those exist are reasonable. This type of socks are undoubtedly indispensable to some consumers because there must be someone who is likely to be thrift and do not want to waste too much money on the socks. At this time, the products will be their first choice. Not addressing these additional possibilities strongly weakens the argument.
In summary, the arguer jumps to the conclusion that we should get rid of the generalization of the Endure-socks in order for the profits from other products.  Without a scientific evidence, we can not be convinced that Endure-socks prohibited the selling of different types of other products. To make the argument stronger, the arguer should provide more detailed and direct information to support the statement. Absent these, the argument is purely the author's speculation.