The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of KNOW radio station."Several factors indicate that KNOW radio can no longer succeed as a rock-and-roll music station. Consider, for example, that the number of people in our listening area over fif

The given argument suggests that turning KNOW radio station from music to a full-time news channel will attract more customers and make it more profitable. The conclusion is based on the premise of aged population, declining number of listeners, dropping sales of music and success of news stations in neighboring cities. The argument seems plausible at first sight. However, on scrutiny, the argument is found to be rife with holes and assumptions. Hence, the argument must be thoroughly analyzed before executing the decision.

Firstly, the author just cites that the people in listening area are over fifty years of age and are more in number. But he does not quote any proper survey being done to validate his statement. Moreover, he blindly relates the aged people to be not interested in listening. This is an example of hasty generalization flaw. Questions regarding the percentage of decline of the number of listeners must be given in order to get a fair idea. It might be the case that the total number of listeners is 1000 and if is declined only by 2%, then the resulting number will be immaterial and almost the same as original. Therefore, more details regarding the listeners surveyed and the listening interests of people of all age groups in that particular area etc.. must be furnished in order to validate the author's claim.

Secondly, the manager(author) states decreased sales in certain music stores to be one of the causes for predicted failure of KNOW radio station. This is a correlation-causation kind of error. The number of music stores taken into consideration and the period in which their sales details were recorded must be mentioned. Moreover, the exact cause of decreased sales must be revealed upon analyzing a variety of possible factors. Furthermore, the people must be questioned on what made them not to approach the music stores. For example, the cause of decrease in sales might be of the price-hike of music being delivered in CDs or cassettes, which will possibly have no effect on the reception of music through radio broadcast. Another possible cause might be that people download the music through the internet or purchase them for lower prices elsewhere. Therefore, decrease in sales of rock-and-roll music in stores cannot be attributed as a reason to the forecast failure of KNOW radio station.

Thirdly, the manager commits a grave mistake of faulty analogy. He predicts that the continuous news delivery in place of music will reap benefits for KNOW radio station based on the success of this method in neighboring cities. For the cities to be comparable, they must have similar conditions. For example, the population must be of the right mix or almost contain the same number of people in age group in the cities compared. Additionally, the interests of the people must also be given consideration. What if the people in the current city do not favor 24-hour news? Is attracting older listeners alone enough to keep KNOW radio station going on successfully forever? - These kind of questions must be answered in order to substantiate the analogy presented by the manager.

Thus, the argument entails lots of questions to be answered before arriving at a clear-cut idea. The interests, number of people in each group etc.. of those in listening area must be provided. The exact cause of drop in music sales must be revealed. The impact of delivery of music through other forms than stores must be analyzed. The neighboring cities must be proven to have the same conditions of the current city in order to switch KNOW radio station from music to 24 hours news' broadcast. Various programs to attract young people can also be decided based upon the ratio of the young to the old. If not, targeting only the old populace must be reasoned out thoroughly. Only if these questions are answered and the explanation is provided, can this argument be an impeccable one. Still then, it is highly not advisable to consider this fallacious argument.