How would this essay score on the GMAT? Constructive Advice?

Since the PrepGMAT software doesn't score the AWA section, thought I'd post my essay here. Would appreciate any feedback and advice on how it can be improved.

QUESTION:
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.
"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 product 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."

ANSWER (306 words):
The article, which appeared in the business section of a local newspaper, argues that a foreign company must have failed to attract motorcycle X customers for reasons other than its motorcycle's perceived lack of engine noise. The article is flawed in its reasoning, and therefore arrives at an unwarranted conclusion.

Firstly, the author makes the claim that most foreign cars are quieter than American counterparts and that doesn't necessarily adversely affect their sales volumes. The author does not mention where the foreign cars are predominantly sold. For example, if these foreign cars are majorly sold in Europe, then the author is incorrect to draw the conclusion that the quieter engines do not affect sales to motorcycle X customers, who are presumably based in North America. It is clear that the author inadvertantly (and incorrectly) conflates sales to motorcycle X customers with general sales. The argument could have been strengthened had the author compared foreign car sales to customers of similiar demographic and preferences as motorcycle X customers.

Secondly, the author presents another flawed piece of evidence to his claim, citing that motorcycle X advertisements do not empasize its noisiness. There is no attempt made to explain the rationale behind the author's logic. The author may be speculating that motorcycle X customers don't actually value the engine roar, otherwise it would be featured in the ad. This rationale is flawed though, as the ads may have been designed to appeal to a new segment of customers, not the core motorcycle X consumer base. The argument could have been bolstered had the author elaborated on his reasoning, and explained how the design of advertisements was linked to the preferences of motorcycle X customers.

To conclude, the argument in the article was poorly constructed and not substantiated with any compelling evidence, rendering the conclusion weak and open to debate.