GMAT AWA: Argument

The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of the Fizzle Soda Company. “There is apparently a market for new beverages, as can be seen from the fact that other companies have recently introduced new juice drinks and sports drinks. Given this market and customer surveys indicating that many drinkers of regular Fizzle soda add chocolate syrup to their soda, we can increase our company’s sales by creating a new chocolate-flavored soda, ‘Choco-Fizz.’ Choco-Fizz will help us attract new customers and keep our customers who might otherwise switch to our competitors’ chocolate beverages. And Choco-Fizz will be more successful than Fizzle Plus, our most recently introduced flavor, because it will be easier to distinguish from regular Fizzle soda.
---------------------------------------------------------

修改過:

In this memo, the Vice President of the Fizzle Soda Company reaches the conclusion that Choco-Fizz will attarct new customers successfully. This argument is based on the survey indicating that many drinkers of regular Fizzle Soda add chocolate syrup to their soda. An additional reason given in spport his claim is the fact that Choco-Fizz has distinct feature from regular Fizzle soda. These two reasons, however, are weak and groundless for the following reasons.

First of all, the speaker assumes that the success of new juice drinks and sports drinks is due to a market for new beverage. There is no evidence, however, to support the assumption that all the drinks are analogous in all respects. Although there is a market for new juice drinks and sports drinks, it doesn't neccessarily suggest that there is one for any other beverages. Thus, the launch of another beverage could turn out to have no market and fail. Without further evidence to show that a market for any other new beverages does exist, it is too risky to launch a new product.

Secondly, the survey cited in the memo is lacking information to prove its representitiveness: how many persons were surveyed, how many responded, and where, when and how the survey was conducted. It is possible, for example, that 200 hundred were surveyed but only 2 responded. It is also possible that those who responded happened to be those who like to add chocolate syrup to the drink. Unless the argument offers evidence that would rule out these kinds of interpretations, it is reasonable to supect the representitiveness of its samples surveyed.

Finally, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the causal connection between the beverage's distinction and success. The fact that the Choco-Fizz is distinguishable from other beverages does not follow that it could be more successful. Without further reasoning, the statement that since Choco-Fizz is easier to distinguish from from regular beverages, it can be more successful is fallacious.

In sum, the speaker fails to provide adequate justification for his statement. As it stands, the reasoning does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the recommendation. To better assess the argument, we need additional detailed information about the basis of the reasoning and the survey so that we can establish the conclusion whether the launch of new Choco-Fizz will be successful.