Joined: 05 Jun 2012
, given: 4
Argument Essay : Motorcycle X. Please Rate it. [#permalink]
15 Oct 2012, 07:05
I would really appreciate if you could take some time of yours to read and grade my essay.
Please consider that this is my first ever essay. I used Chineseburned guide for this essay.
I am open to all kind of criticism.
Thanks in advance.
“Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say because its products lacks the exceptionally loud noise made by motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness and the ads typically have voice-overs or rock music rather than engine roar on the sound track.”
The argument rejects the lack of noise made by the manufacturer’s motorcycle as an explanation supporting the disrupted attempt of attracting motorcycle X customers and argues that there might be some other explanation. To justify his claim, the author compares American-made cars and foreign cars, which tend to be quieter the former and describe television advertisements for motorcycle X that typically highlight other features that the motorcycle’s noisiness.
Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there are no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that as quieter foreign cars sell at least as well as American-made cars, quieter motorcycles should do so as well, implying that the noisiness of a motorcycle is a factor, future motorcycles owners consider during the buying decision. This is a weak statement as the author fails to draw a parallel between the factors influencing the buying process of a car and factors influencing that of a motorcycle. The argument implies that car buyers and motorcycles buyers are quite similar on the features they base their buying decision. However, a typical car driver tends to favor different characteristics than a typical motorcycle. For example, future car buyers usually emphasize on characteristics such as head room, seats capacity, security, comfort rather than speed, horse power and so on. A family is more likely to buy a quieter, more secure four-door sedan than a noisy, fast racing car. If the author had compared the factors that car buyers favors with those of motorcycles buyers and provided evidence that these two parties are similar, the argument could have been clearer and strengthened.
Second, the author claims that as television advertisements for motorcycle X does not highlight its noisiness but instead, advertisements highlight its durability and sleek lines and use rock music on the sound track, the noisiness of the motorcycle X does not influence the purchase of the vehicle itself. This statement is again unconvincing as it does not to demonstrate a correlation between the features ads highlight and the features motorcycles buyers consider important. In fact, the manufacturer of motorcycle X may not need to highlight the noisiness of its vehicle, which has been selling for over 70 years now, having gained certain reputation among the motorcycle passionate. For instance, the famous motorcycle manufacturer Harley Davidson, famous for its engines’ noise and particular design, showed a lonely biker riding trough empty landscapes, with rock music on the background in one of its television advertisement. Nevertheless, if the argument had provided evidence that television advertisements reflect what motorcycle drivers care about, the argument would have sounded more convincing.
Finally, the argument states that there might be other explanations about the underperformance of the foreign company rather than the lack of noisiness of its motorcycles. The argument does not present these underlined explanations, for which there are no evidence. Without these explanations, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking than substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed and is therefore unconvincing for the above mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.