A200欢迎大家多交流

fftomatoUID: 2206553

At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems sound and convincing that by targeting at the male consumer and highlighting both the effectiveness of the anesthetic techniques and the staff’s considerate care to the patients, the dentist advertisements can attract much more patients, as statistics show that, compared to female patients, male patients faint more times which means they are more distressed when experiencing dental work . However, a closer inspection reveals it suffers from several critical fallacies that undermine its validity, as discussed below.

To begin with, the arguer commits a significant fallacy of hasty generalization. Granted that, the male patients do easily get distressed than the female when experiencing dental work, it does not necessarily follows that a commercial targeting at male consumers will be more appealing. It is highly possible that there are more male patients than females. If this scenario is true, merely focusing on male consumer while neglecting the female patients will risk losing a larger mount of customers in the market share. In addition, common sense tells us that female consumers are easier be persuaded by the commercials. Hence, apprehension will be heaped on the effectiveness of a male-oriented commercial. Furthermore, no evidence has been mentioned in the argument to prove when choosing a dentist, the consumers will put the effectiveness of the anesthetic techniques and the care of staff to distressed patient on the first place. As a matter of fact, the patients probably care much more about is the curative effect, or clean environment, or a set of advance medical equipment, or the reputation of the dentists. Without taking into account with these possible factors, the arguer can not confidently predict that the advertisements as recommended will attract more patients.

In addition, the conclusion that men are more likely to be distressed about having dental done than women suggested that it is presumed on the following two premises. First, distress is the only cause of faint and faint is the only symptom of distress . However, it is certainly not the case. The arguer fails to consider the possibility that men may be sensitive to certain special medical chemical used in the dental work, which is the true cause of faint. It is equally possible that women , in fact, are very distressed psychologically, while it does not necessarily manifested as faint but with other symptoms that neglected by the dentists. The second premise is more men faint than women, resting on the statistics gleaned by dentists that three times more men faint than women while visiting the dentists. Nonetheless the statistics are too vague to be informative. What if there are more men than women go to these dentists? To make the conclusion more convincing, he or she has to provide the respective ratio of faint among male and female patients.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive and the decision needs to be reconsidered as it stands. Before any advertisement strategy is taken, the dentists should have a better evaluation about the concrete situations and demands of the patients. More detailed and reliable investigation should be taken , if the dentists want to draw out a profitable plan , and avoid undesirable risks.