Can anyone review my AWA. Thanks in advance.
The following appeared in the opinion column of a financial magazine:
“On average, middle-aged consumers devote 39 percent of their retail expenditure to department store products and services, while for younger consumers the average is only 25 percent. Since the number of middle-aged people will increase dramatically within the next decade, department stores can expect retail sales to increase significantly during that period. Furthermore, to take advantage of the trend, these stores should begin to replace some of those products intended to attract the younger consumer with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumer.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument opines that departmental stores should begin to replace its product meant to attract younger consumer with products intended for middle-aged consumer. This is based on the finding that percentage average spending of middle aged consumers is more than that of younger consumers, and number of middle-aged people are going to increase in next year. The argument's conclusion is flawed for several reasons as elaborated below.
First, argument makes an unwarranted assumption that 39% of retail expenditure of middle-aged consumer is more than 25% of that of younger consumers. The argument fails to compare the retail expenditure of two groups in absolute terms. Argument ignores certain key factors such as income, family size, etc. which may play key role in determine the spending behaviour of any consumer. There is a possibility that average income of middle aged consumers is less than that of younger consumers and so is their retail expenditures. In such scenarios, even 39% of retail expenditure of middle-aged consumers is less than 25% of retail expenditure of younger consumers, and eventually department stores will end up losing revenue if they follow the proposed strategy.
Second, argument fails to consider that present younger consumers who are spending only 25% of their retail expenditure are going to form pool of middle aged consumers in next ten years, and their spending may not increase from 25% to 39%, which is the spending of present day middle aged people. It might be possible that increase in revenue due to increase in customer base is less than or equal to decrease in revenue due to decrease in spending from 39% to 25%, and hence departmental store will not at all be benefitted by replacing their products. Argument could have been strengthened by providing rationals for assuming that consumer spending is likely to increase from 25% to 39%.
Third, argument considers that increase in revenues due to increase in sales will yield higher profits. It could be possible that profit margins on products sold to younger generation is much greater than profits on products sold to middle aged people, and in such scenarios, replacing product may not be advantageous for department stores. Argument fails to weigh increase in profits due to increase in sales against loss of profits due to product replacement.
Forth, argument does not shed any light on the change in number of younger consumers within next decade and based whole argument on dramatical increase in number of middle aged consumer. Had the argument stated that increase in number of younger consumer over next ten years is less than that of middle-aged consumer, the argument would have strengthened its case.
In summary, the argument is flawed for several reasons and hence, fails to make a convincing case.