Please Rate My Essay (GMAT in 2 weeks)
[#permalink]
17 Jan 2018, 07:49
Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling 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.
This argument seeks to refute the claim that the reason the foreign copy of motorcycle X is not selling well is because it does not make the loud sound that motorcycle X makes. It cites evidence that foreign cars are quieter than similar American-made cars, and that they sell well, so sound must not be a factor in the motorcycle market. It also points out that television advertisements for motorcycle X do not emphasize its noisiness, so this must not be a selling point. These two particular pieces of evidence are not valid because they rely on shaky assumptions. Therefore, the argument is weak, and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the car and motorcycle markets are driven by identical forces in regards to the noise of their products. This assumption is flawed, as drivers of motorcycles and drivers of cars may indeed by quite different in their desires. For example, many motorcycle riders often take the muffler out of their motorcycles specifically to increase their already noisy vehicle. This practice is far less common in car drivers, and luxury car brands often emphasize the quiet and comfort of their rides in their advertisements. This flawed assumption makes the “evidence” that quieter foreign cars sell just as well as noisier American cars invalid, as these two groups of consumers may have polar views on the attractiveness of sound in their respective vehicles.
The author also cites the content of motorcycle X’s advertising in its argument, claiming that the noisiness of the vehicle is never mentioned. This does nothing to show that noisiness is not the underlying factor which explains the selling pattern of the two competing motorcycles. The content of commercials and advertisements do not always necessarily line up with the reasons of the customer for ultimately buying the product. This is an inherent assumption in the author’s argument, and it is flawed because this assumption is false. Perhaps the makers of motorcycle X are unaware that noisiness is a selling point, or they are rather targeting other customers who do not value noisiness by showing off lesser known features of their product. In any case, it is invalid to assume that the features mentioned in advertisements are necessarily the features which attract the most attention from consumers. Furthermore, the article mentions that ads typically will include rock music, which is a fairly loud genre of music and may be a subtler way of signaling the noisiness of their motorcycle. It is also worth pointing out that car advertisements will often feature quieter music that emphasizes their car’s sleekness, quietness, and comfort. This is again another example of how the automobile and motorcycle industries are trying to communicate to inherently different subsets of the population.
If the argument had instead done a survey of recent buyers of motorcycle X to determine why they chose the brand over the foreign competitor, and that survey showed that noise was not a significant factor, this would have been a much stronger argument. Instead, it relies on a false equivalence between the motorcycle and automobile industries, and some weak conjecture from motorcycle X commercials to try and conclude underlying reasons for consumer behavior. Therefore, this argument has no legs to stand on, and is flawed as well as unconvincing.