The following appeared in a report to the board of a company that produces men’s sporting apparel:“While national television advertising is increasingly expensive, it would cost roughly the same amount to reach the same number of people by buying prin

The author of this argument has failed to convince us that the sport apparel company should increase the investment in television adds and terminate any magazine contracts once they are about to be renewed. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact which renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.

First of all, the author abstractly states that television advertisement is increasingly expensive without providing any detailed figures or percentages in order to safely evaluate the argument. What is the current cost of television advertisement and at what rate is it expected to rise? The author assumes that the rates, although they are high enough, will out-rate the efficiency compared to the cost efficiency of print advertisement space but there is not enough evidence for this. In addition, the author continues with another generalization when stating that the cost would be "roughly" the same. Again, at what scales does the author base this argument? Are we talking in a scale of some thousands difference or millions? Enumerated evidence would dispel any ambiguity here pointing out if the difference is that significant to be considered or not.

Next, the author is engaged in a nebulous assumption when he/she states that since their latest television ad campaign, sales have been proliferated only in the related market with television advertisement, demonizing in this way the printed advertisements. However, since there is no further clarification about which products are advertised via TV and which via magazines, there may be numerous reasons for this outcome. For instance, what if the products are advertised in the low reputation magazines or in a wrong topic magazines while the products on television are advertised during the hours of high television attendance. This suggests that the author's proposition may need to adjust the aforementioned factors and not completely cut down the magazine advertisement. Furthermore, the author does not provide any figures or numbers regarding the increase in sales for the products related to TV advertisement. Again, the increment may not be that high to out-stand the benefits of the invariable sales of the lower priced printed ads.

Finally, the author falsely suggests to completely avoid any renewal of magazine contracts and should increase the TV ads investment. However, there may be more parameters to consider when making such a significant call. What if the products that are advertised via the magazines refer to consumers who do not watch television. If this is the case, the company may lose a significant portion of customers, without being able to recover them via the TV advertisements. In addition, the author does not enumerate the suggested investment. Will the increase be enough to fill the gap of magazine advertisement? Is the company able to recover the lost customers from the print ads? The author should have clarified this crucial point.

To sum up, based on unsubstantiated assumptions and poor evidence, the arguer's reasoning does not provide concrete support for the stated conclusion. If the argument had included the items discussed above, it would have been more thorough and convincing.