Sajjad1994May I request to review my essay on the undermentioned AWA prompt :-
QUESTIONThe 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."Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
ESSAYThe argument under reference, an extract from an article in the business section of a local newspaper, argues in favor of an alternate explanation, as a counter to the loud noise of motorcycle X, for low sales of the copy version of motorcycle X produced by a foreign company. The sole premise offered in support of the argument by the author are the focus areas during the television advertisements of motorcycle X. The argument, at an initial glance, seems logically convincing; however, on a deeper analysis , it comes to the fore that the argument suffers from doubtful assumption, as also lack of adequate supporting evidence. Besides, there are several critical flaws affecting reasoning, which have been enumerated in the succeeding paragraphs.
Firstly, the argument rests on the assumption that the television advertisements depict the sole medium for publicity of specific features by the manufacturers of original version of motorcycle X. Such an overbearing assumption is clearly unwarranted. The author needs to explore other media to provide a balanced assessment regarding the depiction of characteristic features of original version of motorcycle X by the manufacturers.
Secondly, the author has compared the trends applicable for American-made cars to those applicable for the motorcycle X. While both the cars and the motorcycles are automobiles, such a comparison seems overreaching, in that the target customer base for different automobiles are likely to be different. Accordingly, the responses by respective customer populace may also be varied.
Thirdly, the argument lacks enough supporting evidence to justify the reasoning that other explanation, as against the loud noise characteristic, will dominate while attributing low sales of the copied version of motorcycle X. The author needs to supplement the argument using the expert views, population surveys and comparative analyses regarding various features of the motorcycles.
Lastly, the argument also needs to provide comparative matrices to evaluate whether the manufacturers of the original version have used the loud noise characteristic just to supplement the durability and aesthetic appeal of motorcycle X. If the author is able to depict beyond doubt such a phenomenon by the original manufacturers, the argument's reasoning will find considerable favor.
Towards improving the logical consistency in the argument, the author should include adequate supporting evidence, to include the comparative feature analyses on different media sources, expert views on technical aspects and population surveys regarding the features, which various population categories find appealing.
In essence, the argument in its existing state, is logically deficient, in that it rests on doubtful assumptions and inadequate supporting evidence and examples. If the author includes relevant supporting evidence by broadening the scope of evidence, it will significantly assist the author towards strengthening the validity of the argument that there exist alternate explanations vis-a-vis the loud noise exclusivity argument posited by certain critics.