Argument sample

"The profits from Reflex Health Club’s expansion into the new sport of tagball have not met projected expectations. Although Reflex has stocked an extensive array of tagball equipment and provided a state-of-the-art tagball court, equipment sales have been sluggish. The new tagball court is seeing extensive and steady customer traffic, but it is used mainly by veteran tagball players who have already made the extensive initial equipment outlay(apparently purchasing mainly from mail order discounters)who have no further interest in or need for purchasing additional gear other than occasional small-ticket replacements for worn parts. Charging a fee for use of the court is not feasible, since tagball players would just relocate to the public courts downtown. Therefore, Reflex Health Club will show better profit results overall by closing the tagball court, disposing of remaining stock, and instead doubling the existing space and equipment stock for the steadily profitable sport of racquetball."



Sample Analysis

The idea that a business should divest itself of slow-moving product lines and invest in more consistently demanded products initially seems like common sense. However, a deeper analysis of the issue suggests unsupported assumptions are made and that many other factors have to be taken into account before such a decision can be characterized as more profitable overall.

The argument above claims a simple relationship between tagball and profitability: sales of equipment equals profit, and the lack of sales means that business resources should be directed elsewhere. This one-dimensional approach ignores the long-term possibilities of building and sustaining a client base. A steady stream of veteran players using the facilities at Reflex now means more exposure for the club in general, and the possibility of considerable free word-of-mouth advertising. Veteran players may recruit and bring in new players (especially if the club provides incentives) who might then invest in the more expensive starter equipment. Finally, veteran players might take an interest in the club’s other activities because of their presence here, thus leading to more spending on fees and equipment for the club’s other lines of products and services.

The argument’s second contention, that charging a court fee would drive players away, is an unfounded assumption with no supporting evidence. Additional information might show that players prefer Reflex Health Club for other reasons—such as location, community, or the superior quality of the tagball court—and would therefore be willing to pay a fee to play there. A fee that included other incentives such as equipment discounts or trial use of the club’s other facilities, might expand and extend business even further.

Finally, the argument that tagball space and resources would be better devoted to racquetball is another unexamined assumption. Racquetball might exhibit the same pattern of high initial costs followed by slow, but steady spending, so it doesn’t follow that increasing stock and space would produce more profit than similar income related to tagball. Furthermore, additional information might show that racquetball players aren’t exceeding the capacity of the existing facilities, and so expanded court space might go unused and not provide any additional income. The argument does not explore the possibility that tagball’s potential for growth and expansion exceeds the growth potential of racquetball in the long run.

The argument to increase the racquetball facilities would be strengthened by evidence to show both that there’s a demand for additional racquetball space, and that sources of income such as court fees make racquetball more profitable overall in the long term than tagball. The argument to keep tagball would be strengthened by evidence that additional fees, new player recruitment, and increased business in general due to tagball player traffic would net greater business benefits than the switch to racquetball.