The following appeared in a memorandum from the president of Aurora, a company that sells organic milk (milk produced without the use of chemical additives):"Sales of organic food products in this co

The argument that diversification of Aurora’s products will help the company to increase its profits, omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The argument simply describes few ways to improve the overall profit, but this alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of company president’s view and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the current trend of increase in sales will continue to increase after introducing new products. What if the demand decreases in future? Will the company be able to recover the costs incurred for producing new products in such case?
Secondly, how many people actually read the health magazines? If the count is high then the argument’s prediction will be correct. Also, after reading such magazines the customers might even stop buying outside food or eating outside food. In both the cases company’s profits might be affected and ultimately result against the argument’s prediction.
Further, the company’s decision of hiring the founder of a chain of health-food stores to serve as company’s vice president is not backed with evidences. We aren’t sure how successfully the health-food chain has established itself in the market. How good the founder was at his marketing skills?
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely explaining the way to increasing company’s profits, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.