Argument166 飞越dreams小组第3次作业

syjsss213UID: 2415289

TOPIC: ARGUMENT166 - The following appeared in a local newspaper.
"People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor's prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective."
WORDS: 326          TIME: 50min


In this argument, the author suggests that people should not pay much attention to the competition between Coldex and Cold-Away and concludes that Cold-Away is more effective by comparing the side effect and selling time of the both cold medication. At first glance, this argument seems tantalizingly convincing, but further evaluation tells me that there exists logical fallacy which weakens his argument.

To begin with, the author makes his hasty conclusion without any specifical evidence to reveal that advertisements have truly influenced people's choice. Since advertisements are always designed to put emphasis on the effectivity and advantages of its products and to evade confessing the side-effect and high price of them, people may sometime attach little importance on tedious or sometime misleading advertising. It is entirely possible that people make their choice mainly due to what public remarks on the products, or what health condition of the users of these products. And in such cases, author's suggestion seems meaningless and useless.

Secondly, the author oversimplifies the competition between the two cold medications. The side-effect, only one factor that consumers take into consideration when purchasing medicines, may not determine significantly consumers' preference toward certain product. It is entirely possible that the unwanted side-effects go hand in hand with the high efficiency to eradicate virus and conquer the disease, and people probably have willingness to tolerate the side-effect in order to earn rapid recovery. Without adequate evidence to reveal what consumers really concern and to rule out this possibility, the author's reasoning is unpersuasive and inacceptable.

Finally, the citation that Cold-Away's long-term occupation of market and more trade with hospitals tells little about its effectivity. Since each medication possibly specializes in attracting certain groups of people, the Coldex may locate its majority of consumers in public and have little intention to compete with Cold-Away in hospital sphere. Moreover, since Cold-Away is probably formerly produced, the longer presence on market will conversely reveal its obsolete and outmode quality.