Please Review my AWA - OG 2017 green pg 828 second topic
[#permalink]
24 Feb 2017, 16:25
The argument claims that because Company A holds a large share of the video-game market, just as Company B did, Company A will also fail. The argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that Company A and Company B are the same. It also fails to mention key factors on the basis of which the argument could be evaluated.
First, the argument readily assumes that Company A and B are the same. This statement is a stretch because we know no other details except that the two had similar products. For example, we do not know if either company had other revenue sources, or what percentage of the company’s profits came from video-game products. Clearly, we cannot compare the two companies without knowing how much of each companies profits were directly related to video-game products. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that each company had the same revenue sources.
Second, the argument claims that since Company B failed, that Company A can also be expected to fail. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim, as the agreement does not demonstrate any correlation between Company B’s failure and Company A’s expectation to fail. To illustrate, the argument states that Company B failed because children became bored with its line of products. While arguing that Company A will be expected to fail because the demand is exhausted. If the argument provided evidence that Company A will experience the same downward trend in sales as Company B then the argument would have been more convincing.
Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that Company A will mirror the failure of Company B.