Argument 171

[tamsel]

171The following appeared in a memo from the marketing director of Bargain Brand Cereals.

'One year ago we introduced our first product, 'Bargain Brand' breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies. Although the companies producing the top brands have since tried to compete with us by lowering their prices, and although several plan to introduce their own budget brands, not once have we needed to raise our prices to continue making a profit. Given our success selling cereal, Bargain Brand should now expand its business and begin marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible.'


The author assumes that the low price of 'Bargain Brand' was the success of growth of its paln . The evidence provided by the author is not conclusive and needs substantial claims .

First , the author claims that breakfast cereal prices are low compared to the other brands. The difference of money between the other brands and " Bargain Brand " is not mentioned , the quantity involved for that price is not mentioned . Bargain brand might have sold 25% lesser quantity than other brand due to this the price of the product is less compared to other brands.

Second, profit the mentioned has to be analyzed whether that is considerably higher than the other products . It may be higher than the previous year revenue but necessarily higher than the other brands. Even more, other brands might have tripled the profit compared with the " Bargain Brand " .The profit between the brands of breakfast has to be checked without that the author cannot contend that the profit is high . Additionally, the cereal profits for the other brands are higher even after customers are declining.

Third, the customers decline in other brands does not correlate with the profit of " Bargain Brand " . the author doesn't mentioned about the declined customer , whether they opted for the " Bargain Brand " . The customer decline in one breakfast cereal brand cannot compared with the profit of " Bargain Brand ". The customer might have opted for the other brand . Number of customer decline is not mentioned , even one customer reduction is the decline but necessarily not the plummet of profit .

Finally , the reduction of price in other brands is not mentioned , might be higher than the price of "Bargain Brand " and the profit obtained by them is considerably high than "Bargain Brand " even after the reduction of price . The new budget plan and other schemes introduced by other brands may be regular chores annually , that doesnot show the measures especially taken for the low price of the "Bargain Brand ".

In sum , the evidence given by the author is not sufficient . The price of "Bargain Brand " and other brands are not mentioned . The quantity involved in the brand is not explained . The number of customers decline and profit comparison table of other brands with "Bargain Brand " is not mentioned . substantial claims are not needed to show that the brand is on the real move.