Hi
Sajjad1994, Please review my AWA, thanks.
My essay:
The aforementioned argument claims that an investment and financial consulting firm should consider transferring their invesments from Cola Loca, cold brand, to Early Bird Coffee, a coffee brand because of increasing number of older adults over the next 20 years. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Among the most pivotal shortcomings of the argument are its inability to address, or even acknowledge, its underlying assumptions and provide sufficient information to substantiate its claims. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that demand for coffee will increase and demand for cola will decrease in next 20 years. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, it may be the case that even after reduced demand for cola, still revenues generated from selling cola is higher than that generated from selling coffee. Since the argument does not provide current statistics of coffee and cola consumption and hence, revnues generated from their sale, it can not be ascertained that transferring investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee will be beneficial for the firm. Clearly this leap of faith affects the reasoning of the argument. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly provided additional information to be in a better position to comment on investment strategy of the firm.
Second, the argument assumes that, to cater to increased demand for cola, firm should transfer its investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee. However, argument misses several another possible courses of action that could be possible. For instance, the firm may be able to cater to increased demand for coffee without reducing its investments in brand of cola. The argument does not provide any reason to believe that this is the best course of action that firm should opt for. The argument would have been a lot more convincing if it provided further evidence to cement its reasoning as to why transferring invesments from Cola Loca to Early Bird coffee is suitable for the firm.
Further, the argument fails to provide answer to few questions. For example, what will be the general population distribution of young adults in next 20 years? As this may provide significant insights as to how much will the consumption of cola reduce over next 20 years. In addition, How likely is for the trends observed for coffee and cola consumption in the past, to continue in the future? Without answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence. As a result, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In conclusion, the aforementioned argument contains a considerable number of defects, most blatant of which have been discussed above. The argument could have been strengthened considerably, if answers to questions raised above were provided. However, as it stands, one must necessarily conclude that the argument is a hasty generalization filled with overreaching assumptions and deficiencies in information. Without this information, the conclusion is unsubstantiated and remains open to debate.