Sajjad1994 Would appreciate if you could review my AWA as well!
In the business plan of an investment and financial consulting firm, the author argues that the firm should transfer their investments from Cola Loca to Early Bird Coffee due to recent studies that show that a cola drinker's consumption of cola declines with age whereas that of a coffee drinker's remains high even after age 60. While the argument is compelling at face-value, the conclusion is ultimately untenable because it rests on incomplete data, causing data bias error, and it lacks evidence backing the applicability of the study to the two specific brands that the firm currently has holdings in.
The author cites the study of an average coffee drinker's consumption to make his argument regarding the firm's investment decision. The study observes an age group from 10 through 60 of coffee drinkers and cola drinkers, and concludes that a cola drinker's consumption of cola declines with age. However, the study never specifically cites how much that consumption decreases. The decrease may be, for example, 1 ounce per year, and such a miniscule decrease will not change revenue of a cola brand significantly. Further, the author fails to provide information regarding the size of the trial, since if the trial were conducted with only a few participants, it was be quick to assume that the conclusion from the trial would be applicable for the greater population. Citing only the study, the author fails to recognize that while the aging population will increase over the next 20 years, there may be a younger population which has difference preferences and who can make up a greater total percentage of the target customers in the future. So, even if the older generation may decrease their consumption, a younger generation may increase their consumption so much as to offset that decrease.
Additionally, the author fails to prove the applicability of the study to the specific brands, Cola Loca and Early Bird Coffee. While overall trends may be drawn from the market, that is no indication that the trends hold for the two specific brands. Especially, if the brands are niche and appeal to a specific demographic, then the general trends of a wider population would not be applicable. Moreover, if there study were held in a different geography and thus applies to a different target market altogether, then the conclusions drawn from the study should not be utilized to make investment decisions for Cola Loca and Early Bird Coffee (i.e. if the study were conducted in Latin America, but Cola Loca and Early Bird Coffee are companies with target markets in the United States). Thus, the author provides no indication that the study holds true for those specific brands.
To improve the argument, the author should provide more comprehensive information regarding the trial such as information on trial size, the specific outcomes of the trial (i.e. how much decrease in cola was found in participants), the location of the trial (which country was the trial conducted), and the applicability of the trial to the specific brands. Further, the author must also investiage how the younger population will age into the target market, and how their preferences compare to the current demographics, as this information can be crucial to understanding future demand.
In summary, the argument remains invalid because of the hasty generalizations and the lack of evidence that the author provides. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide more comprehensive evidence that establishes a stronger basis for the claims put forth in the business plan. Without conclusive evidence, the argument rests on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render the conclusion invalid.