The following appeared as part of a plan proposed by an executive of the Easy Credit Company to the president:"The Easy Credit Company would gain an advantage over competing credit card services if we were to donate a portion of the proceeds from the use

The author of the argument has failed to convince us that the proposed plan would be advantageous for the Easy Credit Company. 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, since the whole argument is based on a recent poll, we have to arbitrary assume that the sample of the people polled is representative of the people who use credit cards and therefore the poll reflects the attitude of card users to environmental issues. In addition, there is no indication concerning the exact percentage of the public that is concerned about environmental issues. What is the percentage threshold that will suffice for the company to gain a competitive advantage? When implementing financial strategies, however, one should deal with exact figures and not abstract percentages. In addition, how does this plan ensures that every potential customer will hear about this new logo? Is the specific environmental company logo already well-known to the public? The author does not clarify, in order to validate the plan, the costs of advertising the relationship of company with the environmental organization, the costs of launching the new credit card in the market, and the portion of the proceeds, an unknown figure, that will be donated.

Furthermore, even if we assume the aforementioned, the executive assumes a cause and effect relationship so that someone who is concerned about environmental issues is willing to switch to or increase the use of a credit card just because of the company's correlation with an environmental organization. Yet, the author of the argument fails to realize that various other factors, such as the interest rates or practical necessity contribute to a variance in the use of cards and that environmental sensitivity has not been proved to be one of those factors. In addition, the recent poll could represent a completely unrelated perspective among environmental awareness and eco-friendly products. Was it a generic poll that tested public opinion on purely environmental effects and disasters, like ice melting or greenhouse effect, or did it examine the public's relation with environmental friendly products? The author should have clarified this point in order to strengthen the basis of the argument.

Finally, the author makes a very bold assumption that the company will be able to charge interest rates that are higher than the lowest ones available. To substantiate this assumption, the author should have provide more positive evidence of users who are willing to pay more for the provided service as long as the credit card company is associated with an environmental organization. Unfortunately, there is no such a valid causal relationship in the author's claim. Since credit cards, as a product, cannot be easily promoted as an ecological product, unlike cars that burn fossil fuels, it is difficult to convince the public that the extra cost would indeed be for the good of the environment. For instance, will the credit cards be made from recycled materials justifying in that way the higher interest? The author should have clarified this delicate issue.

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