The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the United States for over 70 years Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less the compa

The author states that the reason behind the lack of sales of motorcycle Y cannot be it's lack of motorcycle X's characteristic loud noise, explaining that foreign cars tend to be quieter than American cars but sell similar amounts, and that motorcycle X's TV ads do not include nor focus on its noise. The author's argument presents some critical flaws which will be addressed.

First, the author's argument depends on an incorrect extrapolation of observations of cars to motorcycles. Though these two domains may be similar, it is not possible to derive conclusions about motorcycles from observations about cars. This is a critical error in the author's reasoning as key differences between cars and bikes may exist. For example, consumers may want cars to be quiet but prefer bikes that are noisy. Therefore, the author's argument should obtain and use information about motorcycles, not abour cars, to reach its conclusion.

Second, the author implicityly assumes that, since foreign cars tend to be quieter and sell similar to American cars, motorcycle Y will behave in the same way, since it is a foreign car. In doing so, the author believes thar all members of a certain group, in this case, foreign cars, will behave accordingly to their group average or tendency. In this case, he believes that all foreign bikes are quieter than and sell similarly to American cars. Even assuming that cars behave similarly to motorcycles, the tendency of a group cannot be imposed on any individual member that composes it. It is completely possible that there exists great variance in sales behaviour withing foreign bikes and motorcyle Y might behave in a totally different way than the foreign bikes' group tendency. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that motorcycle Y will sell just as well as motorcycle X based on the fact that is is foreign and quieter, more information specific to motorcyce Y must be adquired.

Second, the author assumes that the focus of motorcyle X's TV ads is equivalent to the focus of motorcycle X's buyers. Though is is logical to assume a correlation might exist between the issues that are focused on in the TV ads (durability and sleek lines) and those most important to consumers, it is not possible to conclude that they are equal. For example, it is possible that the marketing team behind motorcycle X's ads does not have correct information regarding its consumers and are focusing on unimportant elements. Consequently, the logic and key differentiators behind the consumers buying decision cannot be properly infered from a TV ad. To remedy this problem, a market study of motorcycle X's consumers should be conducted.

In conclusion, the author makes critical mistakes in the reasoning behind his argument, causing it to be unconvincing. The issues mentioned above must be addressed and amended so that the author's conclusion can be logically asummed to be true.