Two years ago, radio station WCQP in Rockville decided to increase the number of call-in advice programs that it broadcast; since that time, its share of the radio audience in the Rockville listening area has increased significantly. Given WCQP's recent s

The argument claims that WCQP in Rockville increased the amount of time it devoted to call-in advice programs and as a result of it its share of audiences has increased. The KICK would be enjoy from the same results if it prolongs its call-in advice programs. Stated in this way, the argument suffers from poor-reasoning and ill-constructed cause and effect relationship. The conclusion of the argument relies on the facts for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument claims that KICK would be able to achieve the results that are similar to the ones WCQP has enjoyed. The argument is weak and unsupported as the argument does not demonstrate any clear correlation between WCQP and KICK. To illustrate, WCQP is located in Rockville, but KICK is in Medway. Since their location is not same, the preferences of their audiences might also be different. In this case, KICK is less likely to be as successful as WCQP in extending its share. In addition, it is stated in the argument that WCQP achieved these results two years ago. There might be a change in the preferences of audiences within two years since these kinds of currents such as television show trends have shorter effects. The argument would be much clearer if it explicitly presented the similarities among audiences in Rockville and Medway. Moreover, providing some information regarding the programs that audiences enjoy listening would also be beneficial.

Second, the argument averts that a nationwide tendency to listen call-in programs is observed in a recent survey. However, the argument does not present any source about the reliability of the survey. It is essential to know whether the people who conducted the survey are experts in these areas. In addition, they might direct the populace by asking biased questions to achieve the results they desire. Furthermore, the scope and the number of people who were surveyed are not specified. The argument claims that the survey was conducted nationwide, but they might just select only a few cities in different states. Without convincing answers to these questions, accepting the survey as a reliable one is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

Finally, even if the survey is reliable, nationwide interest toward these programs does not indicate the people who live in Medway also favor call-in programs. It might be the case that the populace of Medway has higher level of education and they are more interested in culture programs. In addition, there might be not many radio listeners in Medway. Hence, there is no guarantee that KICK would enjoy extension in share even if number of call-in programs is increased. The argument would be much clearer if it presented a specific survey conducted in Medway about radio listening habits and programs that the populace would like to listen .

To sum up, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and it is unconvincing. It would be signficantly stronger if it presented similarities between Rockville and Medway. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision , it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this case, radio listening preferences in Medway is useful. Without detailed statistics, the argument would remain unsubstantiated and open to debate.