The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of Bargain Brand Cereals."One year ago we introduced our first product, Bargain Brand breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies.

The author of the statement above puts forward to expand the successful Bargain Brand Cereals business by producing a new product. This conclusion is grounded in the seemingly profitable experience of a one-year production of cereals and attracting many customers to Bargain. In order to judge whether the argument and the recommendation are reasonable, the author needs to illustrate the argument by answering several vital questions.

First, the author ascribes the success of the company in making profits to the low sale price of its production. However, it needs to be asked: was the success only due to the low price or other factors were also involved? The production of Bargain cereals is new and buyers like new things. In the past year, a new packaging might have attracted the costumers to buy Bargain cereals. Customers might find the ingredients of Bargain's cereals healthier than other products. The taste of cereals might have provided a competitive edge over the other companies. A good advertising could also be the reason. With all these alternatives, we can barely attribute the significant number of the customers to the merely low price of the product.

Secondly, the author portrays companies reducing their prices to compete with Bargain, while Bargain did not need to raise the price to continue making profits. Here the author needs to ask whether the margin of the profits is high enough or not. The profits might be $1 per month. If the margin of the profits is low, then any fluctuation in the market can put the company at the risk of losing. Therefore the author needs to incorporate the detailed report of the company’s profits into the argument.

Finally, assuming that the answers to all previous questions, give credence to the author's conclusion, would introducing a new product be as successful as the one year production of the cereal? The author fails to consider the differences. Marketing a different product involves many alternatives that cannot be hastily refer to the marketing of the other products. The expiration time of the new product, the cost of making new products, the demands of the market, and many other factors can draw huge differences. Failure in meeting only one requirement of the marketing of a new product can end up in a grave loss for the company.

In short, as discussed, the author’s argument is replete with ambiguous points, defying any certain evaluation. The enumerated questions, whose answers can illustrate the argument, are unaddressed by the author. Therefore the conclusion which is based on such an ambiguous argument cannot be tenable.