AWA: Motorcycle X. Question about para 2,3,4

Hi all!
It is my first try to write AWA. Many thanks to chineseburned guide.

Moving on to the question, should I support the idea that the only problem of foreign company is lack of noise through 2, 3, 4
paras?
Is it appropriate to shift my disagreement in para 4 from "there is no other problems except lack of noice" to "general fallacies of argument - in my case cheap=good fallacy"?
If it is not appropriate how can I change the structure of 2, 3, 4 paras?

Thank you in advance.

The argument claims that foreign company that copied motorcycle X, despite lower price, has failed to attract customers of the original manufacturer not only because of the lack of loud noise made by motorcycle but also because of some other reason. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions from which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that since buyers of cars do not show bias in purchasing loud American-made cars rather than quiet foreign ones the same behavior should be observed within the group of motorcycle buyers. This statement is a stretch because the purpose of buying a motorcycle might be different from the one of buying a car. For example, riding a motorcycle is about entertainment while riding a car is more about getting from point A to point B. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that motorcyclists and car drivers follow the same logic while choosing a vehicle.

Second, the argument claims that television ads for motorcycle X do not highlight its noisiness. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between television ads exposure and decision to buy model X. In fact, buyers may decide to purchase model X based on internet forums, video reviews, and personal references. If the argument provided evidence that television ads are the primary motivator to buy model X, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, the argument concludes that a lower price should be considered as an advantage by buyers. However, the argument fails to mention the price tier of motorcycle X. For instance, for luxury goods, lower price could be treated as a disadvantage. Moreover, there is a lack of information about customers’ attitude to the foreign company. Some customers may find the usage of copy unacceptable due to moral issue. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. 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.