86. The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a daily newspaper.
“Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B, the pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line of products. Thus Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted.”
日?qǐng)?bào)的商業(yè)版：
公司a在視頻游戲的硬件軟件方面有很大的國(guó)際市場(chǎng)份額。公司b是這些產(chǎn)品的先鋒，而且曾經(jīng)一度是年收入120億元的巨人，但在孩子們厭倦了它的系列產(chǎn)品后崩潰了。因此公司a也將失敗，考慮到它的產(chǎn)品已經(jīng)占據(jù)了那么多的美國(guó)家庭，對(duì)他的需求已經(jīng)接近枯竭。
1， 類(lèi)比錯(cuò)誤。是否由share導(dǎo)致的。
2， A很可能生產(chǎn)出新的產(chǎn)品。
In this argument the author reasons that the failure of Company B portends a similar fate for Company A. The grounds for this prediction are similarities that exist between the two companies. The line of reasoning is that since both companies produce video-game hardware and software and both enjoy a large share of the market for these products, the failure of one is a reliable predictor of the failure of the other. This argument is unconvincing.
The major problem with the argument is that the stated similarities between Company A and B are insufficient to support the conclusion that Company A will suffer a fate similar to Company B’s. In fact, the similarities stated are irrelevant to that conclusion. Company B did not fail because of its market share or because of the general type of product it produced; it failed because children became bored with its particular line of products. Consequently, the mere fact that Company A holds a large share of the video-game hardware and software market does not support the claim that Company A will also fail.
An additional problem with the argument is that there might be relevant differences between Company A and Company B, which further undermine the conclusion. For example, Company A’s line of products may differ from Company B’s in that children do not become bored with them. Another possible difference is that Company B’s share of the market may have been entirely domestic whereas Company A has a large share of the international market.
In conclusion this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to show that there are sufficient relevant similarities between Company A and Company B as well as no relevant differences between them.
“Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B, the pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line of products. Thus Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted.”
日?qǐng)?bào)的商業(yè)版：
公司a在視頻游戲的硬件軟件方面有很大的國(guó)際市場(chǎng)份額。公司b是這些產(chǎn)品的先鋒，而且曾經(jīng)一度是年收入120億元的巨人，但在孩子們厭倦了它的系列產(chǎn)品后崩潰了。因此公司a也將失敗，考慮到它的產(chǎn)品已經(jīng)占據(jù)了那么多的美國(guó)家庭，對(duì)他的需求已經(jīng)接近枯竭。
1， 類(lèi)比錯(cuò)誤。是否由share導(dǎo)致的。
2， A很可能生產(chǎn)出新的產(chǎn)品。
In this argument the author reasons that the failure of Company B portends a similar fate for Company A. The grounds for this prediction are similarities that exist between the two companies. The line of reasoning is that since both companies produce video-game hardware and software and both enjoy a large share of the market for these products, the failure of one is a reliable predictor of the failure of the other. This argument is unconvincing.
The major problem with the argument is that the stated similarities between Company A and B are insufficient to support the conclusion that Company A will suffer a fate similar to Company B’s. In fact, the similarities stated are irrelevant to that conclusion. Company B did not fail because of its market share or because of the general type of product it produced; it failed because children became bored with its particular line of products. Consequently, the mere fact that Company A holds a large share of the video-game hardware and software market does not support the claim that Company A will also fail.
An additional problem with the argument is that there might be relevant differences between Company A and Company B, which further undermine the conclusion. For example, Company A’s line of products may differ from Company B’s in that children do not become bored with them. Another possible difference is that Company B’s share of the market may have been entirely domestic whereas Company A has a large share of the international market.
In conclusion this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to show that there are sufficient relevant similarities between Company A and Company B as well as no relevant differences between them.