70. The president of the company that produces Glabrous Shampoo argues against # h9 z* h9 j) a5 c8 F) A* A8 {
removing the ingredient HR2 from the shampoo even though a scientific study claims . _7 L5 l* ?7 {( w2 e/ @
that prolonged use of HR2 can contribute to hair loss. Three reasons are cited as the & _2 C8 u, v1 O) i. d/ V ^2 Q/ [
basis for this decision. First, it is argued that since the scientific study involved only 500
7 o; W- t( v0 m( b! }" gsubjects, it can be disregarded. Second, none of Glabrous' customers have complained 4 W; r6 X% m6 D) O; p4 q
of problems during the past year. And, finally, Glabrous' competitors use more HR2 per ' S" T! q( G) [. a& r& o3 }
bottle than Glabrous. The president's decision is problematic in several respects.9 ]0 z1 ~5 @# ]
To begin with, the fact that the scientific study on HR2 involved only 500 subjects 2 i1 \! I: K& J6 g' J8 S! e% Z
is insufficient grounds to dismiss the results of that study. If the subjects for the study
) B, [" m- w8 @* f. R! [' y. ~were randomly chosen and represent a diverse cross section of the population of
4 v/ }+ Z U4 R. E# Rshampoo users, the results will be reliable regardless of the number of participants.
R n; I0 I% r1 b$ o Next, the scientific study determined that prolonged use could contribute to hair
h# z8 Z- b! Kloss. While "prolonged use" was not defined in the memorandum, the fact that none of
3 {! u, y4 y2 x( PGlabrous' customers have complained of problems during the past year is not a reliable
; f; g# r; @3 O% }4 X/ q" dreason to believe that problems will not arise in the future.* P. S& b( u) ~1 R O# ~
Finally, the fact that Glabrous' competitors use more HR2 in their products than
: e. @+ b! e. t3 ?4 a" i- y3 u: EGlabrous uses is irrelevant to the question of whether Glabrous should remove HR2 / J3 z: J# m2 V
from its product. Moreover, rather than providing a reason for not removing the
( V5 x6 T$ w2 `/ ^" \# t1 t9 ucompound, this fact serves better as a reason for doing so. By removing HR2 from its ( P1 {% v7 F5 d; d/ e
product Glabrous could gain an edge over its competitors.
' D- o2 J. j: ^5 w s g In conclusion, the reasoning in this argument is not convincing. To strengthen the 9 m6 @ m0 |# C! n
argument the author would have to show that the study was biased or was based on too + ]0 K) u/ m2 Y# {2 g$ j
small a sample to yield reliable results. |