Please Critic My Essay

Q:The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian, a company that manufactures men's clothing.

"Five years ago, at a time when we had difficulties in obtaining reliable supplies of high-quality wool fabric, we discontinued production of our deluxe alpaca overcoats. Now that we have a new fabric supplier, we should resume production. This coat should sell very well: since we have not offered an alpaca overcoat for five years and since our major competitor no longer makes an alpaca overcoat, there will be pent-up customer demand. Also, since the price of most types of clothing has risen in each of the past five years, customers should be willing to pay significantly higher prices for alpaca overcoats than they did five years ago, and our company profits will increase."

A:

The conclusion, which states that the company's profits will increase, is based on some seemingly related but actually non-determinant premises and assumptions that call for a cautious examination. The vice president's line of reasoning is that the available supplies of wool fabric, the voluntary elimination of an alpaca overcoat by the major competitor, and the alluring price of many other clothing types insure the high profit of the alpaca overcoat. To simply put it, this argument is exposed to serious doubt in three critical aspects.

First of all, this argument makes a hasty generalization that the available raw material alone justifies the resuming of the production of the deluxe alpaca overcoat. It accords with the common sense that a reliable supply of raw materials ensures a high profit. However, it is unfair to assume that such a single premise is strong enough to support the conclusion. For example, it is greatly likely that the production line which has been desolated for five years needs an exhaustive examination or even some major repair. The forbidding costs would probably offset the prospective profits. Unless the vice president can take other pertinent production factors into consideration, the allegation of an increasing profit insured by the sustaining supply of raw material is pale and invalid.

Secondly, a cardinal assumption of the argument is that the deluxe alpaca overcoat is still in great demand in the market. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support the assumption. The cessation of production of such coats by the major competitors can be a rational reaction to an unappealing market and a declining profit. The high prices of other types of clothing may as well reflect the change of consumer tastes. While it is possible that the deluxe alpaca overcoats would bring profits, it is not obvious to be the definite case. Unfortunately, the vice president imprudently assumed a constant market and ignored other crucial possibilities.

Last but not least, the issue discussed in the argument is sensitive and emotionally appealing. The argument at hand might have been deliberately oversimplified for the specific purpose of exciting the targeted audience, and therefore possesses a dubious validity. Arguments that bypass complex factors and reason in favor of instigating emotions do nothing to establish their conclusions; besides, they are also impartial to the parties involved such as shareholders in this case.

In conclusion, because of the problem illustrated above, it would be more than advertent to accept the conclusion exclusively based on the vice president's proposal. To strengthen the argument and make it sound and valid, the vice president needs to provide more pertinent information.