13. In an attempt to sell radio advertising time, this ad claims that radio advertising
* z1 c$ H; E' ^will make businesses more profitable. The evidence cited is a ten percent increase in
8 ~3 @1 l2 r3 X$ Q3 J. G% Rbusiness that the Cumquat Cafe has experienced in the year during which it advertised
- N" @5 f- s, V l! ion the local radio station. This argument is unconvincing because two questionable % z5 s a4 D, R: W3 o l' W; ~
assumptions must be made for the stated evidence to support the authors conclusion.( h2 F' x6 {2 i5 D6 H/ r# j _
The first assumption is that radio advertising alone has caused the increase in
$ \6 z! P- E. g+ V2 |! lbusiness at the Cumquat Cafe. This assumption is questionable because it overlooks a % [ ^, Q& V7 }
number of other factors that might have contributed to the Cumquat's success. For
4 A+ d% v0 Z! U; t% r2 qexample, the Cumquat might have changed owners or chefs; it might have launched a 2 F) L N$ n; v0 `6 M) U
coupon ad campaign in the local print media; or it might have changed or updated the / N4 \6 b2 e$ W! f& r
menu. Yet another possibility is that a local competitor went out of business. These are
& n- B' R) x* _1 F' [* njust a few of the factors that could help explain the Cumquat's growth. Because the
; F# u# J" V; oauthor fails to eliminate these possibilities, the assumption in question need not be % A" T; M2 T* b5 |) ]
accepted.
& N! s1 Q% _# |2 Y% c Even if it is granted that radio advertising is responsible for the Cumquat's
y, m$ U, |' bsuccess, another assumption must be made before we can conclude that radio 0 A* L+ e. c) d, T# Q: E; m9 |3 E
advertising will result in increased profits for businesses in general. We must also 8 h+ \! O, f$ X% ?8 {. b
assume that what is true of the Cumquat will likewise be true of most other businesses. 9 Q5 [# D; C4 [. W; d' U/ s
But there are all kinds of important differences between cafes and other businesses that
; }* e; {3 c4 l/ L8 m( W9 {could affect how radio audiences react to their advertising. We cannot safely assume
) h. l* J% G; Othat because a small restaurant has benefited from radio advertising, that any and all
0 a$ |* u: D2 y# N9 [local businesses will similarly benefit.
- ]$ E( [0 j: o W, g' V In conclusion, it would be imprudent for a business to invest in radio advertising 5 D# {7 C& \8 f2 ]3 Y8 m0 u
solely on the basis of the evidence presented. To strengthen the conclusion, it must be
) j9 S; ?# c! festablished that radio advertising was the principal cause of increased business at the : H+ P3 C- [5 r4 p
Cumquat. Once this is shown, it must be determined that the business in question is + c t" a: U9 [' `
sufficiently like the Cumquat, and so can expect similar returns from investment in
5 }" i, ^; }7 z! Hradio ad time. |