However, the memo provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Perhaps people
are increasing their savings rather than spending their additional income. If so, this fact would
significantly undermine the vice president’s claim that demand for leisure products is
increasing, and therefore that Megamart would benefit by offering more such products.
Yet another problem with the argument involves the reason why average income has risen in
the first place. It is entirely possible that income has risen because people have been working
more hours. If so, then in all likelihood people have less leisure time, in which case they will not
spend more money on leisure products--simply because they have less time for leisure
pursuits. Without addressing this issue, the vice president cannot convince me that Megamart
should expand itsline of leisure products.
In conclusion, the vice president’s argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the
vice president must provide strong evidence that discretionary income is rising and will
continue to rise. The vice president must also show that people will in fact choose to spend this
income on leisure products, and that people have enough free time for leisure pursuits in the
first place.
257
Argument 106
The following appeared in an article in a magazine for writers.
"A recent study showed that in describing a typical day’s conversation, people make an
average of 23 references to watching television and only 1 reference to reading fiction. This
result suggests that, compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling
industries are likely to decline in profitability. Therefore, people who wish to have careers as
writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print
media."
This article cites a recent study showing that during a typical day people make an average of
23 references to watching television but only one reference to reading fiction. From these
statistics the author reasons that the television industry must be far more profitable than the
book-publishing industry, then concludes that people seeking careers in writing should acquire
training and experience in television writing. This argument is flawed in several critical
respects.
First of all, the article’s author has not shown the study upon which the argument depends to
be statistically reliable. The people studied must be representative of the overall population of
people who buy books and watch television; otherwise the author cannot draw any firm
conclusions about the comparative profitability of the television and book publishing industries
based on the study’s results.Secondly, the author’s argument depends on the assumption that the frequency with which a
person refers in conversation to television, or to fiction books, is a good indication of how much
television a person watches, or how many fiction books a person reads. Yet this is not
necessarily the case. Perhaps people tend to refer many times in daily conversation to the
same television show. If so, then the statistics cited would overstate the amount of television
people watch compared to the number of fiction books they read.
Thirdly, even if the statistics cited accurately reflect the amount of television people watch
compared to the number of fiction books they read, it would be hasty to infer based merely on
this fact that the television industry is more profitable than the book-publishing industry. To
begin with, the study’s results excluded any data about nonfiction books--a category that might
very well constitute book publishers’ main profit source. Moreover, the author has not shown
any correlation, let alone a cause-and-effect relationship, between the number of hours a
person spends watching television and that industry’s profits. In any event, lacking financial
statistics about the profitability of the two industries the editorial’s author cannot convince me
that writers should follow the author’s recommendation.
Finally, even assuming that the television industry is more profitable than the
book-publishing industry, the author’s implicit claim that television writers enjoy more secure
and lucrative careers than book writers is without support. It is entirely possible that television
writers are paid comparatively low wages; in fact, low writer compensation might partially
explain why the television industry is relatively profitable. Without better evidence that
television writers are better off then book writers it might be folly to follow the author’s
recommendation.
In sum, the argument relies on several poor assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it
258
stands. To strengthen it the article’s author must provide dear evidence that the study’s
subjects reflect the overall population, and that their conversational habits accu rately reflect
how much television they watch compared to how many books they read. The author must
also show that the disparity between the two contributes to far greater financial rewards for the
television industry, as well as for its writers, than for the book publishing industry and its
writers.
Argument 107
The following article appeared in a recent issue of a college newspaper."Among all students who graduated from Hooper University over the past five years, more
physical science majors than social science majors found permanent jobs within a year of
graduation. In a survey of recent Hooper University graduates, most physical science majors
said they believed that the prestige of Hooper University’s physical science programs helped
them significantly in finding a job. In contrast, social science majors who found permanent
employment attributed their success to their own personal initiative. Therefore, to ensure that
social science majors find permanent jobs, Hooper University should offer additional social
science courses and hire several new faculty members who already have national reputations
in the social sciences."
This article concludes that in order to help its new social-science graduates find permanent
jobs Hooper University should enhance its reputation in this field by adding courses and hiring
eminent faculty. To support this claim the letter points out that more physical science than
social-science students find permanent jobs within a year after graduation. The letter also cites
a survey in which the former group of graduates attributed their job finding success to the
prestige of Hooper’s physical science department, while the latter group attributed their
job-finding success to their own initiative. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals
various statistical and other logical problems, which render it unconvincing.
To begin with, the survey that the argument cites is potentially problematic in three respects.
First, we are not informed whether the survey’s respondents were representativeof the overall
population of recent Hooper graduates in these two fields. The smaller the sample, the greater
the possibility for biased results, and the less reliable the survey. Second, the survey reflects
the graduates’ subjective "beliefs" about why they obtained jobs; yet it is entirely possible
these beliefs are not in accord with the true reason why they obtained jobs. Third, we are
informed that the survey involved "recent" Hooper graduates; however, if the only graduates
surveyed were those from last year’s class, then the survey results would be less reliable than
if the survey embraced a wider range of graduating classes. The smaller the range the less
reliable any general conclusions drawn from the survey.