This is the AWA from Manhattan CAT. Any help much appreciated
"Company X's latest model of digital camera to be released next month, the TR12, is being promoted as the most portable, user-friendly digital camera available, and also an excellent bargain. It can be expected to live up to these claims, because Company X's previous model, the TR11, was universally lauded as setting the standard in these areas last year.”
The argument claims that Company's X latest model of digital camera, the TR12, is on its road to conquer the share market. For this reason, the company invest in promoting the TR12 and adopt an aggressive marketing policy. However, 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 is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is rendered unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the TR12 model will easily manage to succeed as it comes after the TR11, a model which was universally accepted to setting the standards in the market last year. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author fails to take into consideration the factors that contributed in the success of the previous model. For example, it could be that Company's X competitors could not offer a competitive model with such specifications like those of TR11. Clearly, this would render the TR11 a flagship for the digital camera market, especially, if the company managed to offer the model in a competitive price despite the better technical characteristics that the model offered. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the new model, the TR12 offers similar technical advantages towards competition and provides reason to persuade the customers prefer the model.
Second, the author of this memorandum claims that the release of the TR12 is to become a success for the company because of the similarity of this model to the previous one, the TR11, accepted to be a successful one. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the latest and the former model. Even though the author cites as evidence the promotion of the TR12 model as the most portable, user friendly and an excellent bargain, he fails to demonstrate some real evidence to back up his conclusion. To illustrate this, he should have presented the technical specifications of the model compared to those of the previous model and against the specifications of competitors' models. Thus, his argument would be much more easy to evaluate and his conclusion much more persuasive.
Finally, the argument presupposes that the previous model, the TR11, was universally lauded as a market banger. What if the new one is a totally different thing? It could be that Company X would want to explore a new path in digital camera market and led the design and construction of the camera towards a new direction. That would mean that the relation between the previous and the new model is unstable. Without convincing answer on this question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened of the author were to provide some additional details concerning the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular caste, the factors that contributed to TR11's market success and those that correlate this model with the new TR12. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate