“Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B the pioneer of these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children become bored with its line of products. Thus company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted.”
Argument made by the author that company A will face same crisis as company B did, is a mere prediction. The grounds for the predictions are the similarities between the two companies. The line of reasoning is that since both companies produce video game hardware and software both, enjoys a large share of market for these products; failure of one company is predictor of other. The conclusion of the argument which predicts Company A to fail relies on assumptions where there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First of all author assumes that company A is following same strategies followed by the company B. But argument fails to show any explicit correlation between the strategies used by the two companies. What if the company A is using better marketing strategy to capture the target audience? In that case there are fewer chances for company A to face the same fate of company B.
Secondly any prediction about the future is wrong unless backed by evidence to substantiate the claim. It is possible that company A has learned from the mistakes made by the company B and has made certain improvements like competent management, expansion of goals, efficient product differentiation and looked into ostensible markets which may not let it fall like company B.
Moreover argument omits the importance of technological advancement. Argument never gives us evidence that why the products of company A’ will become out of demand. The fact of company A being producing same but more advanced games does not guarantee that it will have the same result that of previous creators of the game.
Similarly it never mentioned that whether Company B’ was capturing international or domestic market and the reasons why children were bored of Company B games? And what is the difference of two company’s video-games? The answer to those questions would specifically identify the relationship of products.
Furthermore another reason for the conclusion made by the author that presence of video-games made by company A almost in every American house is exhausting its demand thus contributing to the downfall of the company is not entirely convincing. Because presence of company A’s games in most of the American homes shows the popularity of the game which could be results in the increase in the export of games to other countries as company a captures international market; thus resulting boost in demand.
Hence the argument is weak and relies upon distorted data and vague assumptions. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to show that there are sufficient relevant similarities between Company A and Company B as well as no relevant differences between them. The argument could be much clearer if it explicitly stated the relationship and the correlation of both companies itself and demand trends.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)