Argument:
The regional brand manager sent the following memo to the national brand manager for Sun-Beem Facial Cleanser.
“We need to institute a huge publicity campaign for the launch of Sun-Beem’s improved formula. Without an enormous media blitz, including television, radio, internet, and magazine ads, potential new customers will not be aware of our product. And previous customers will not be aware that Sun-Beem’s new, non-carcinogenic formula is on the shelves. The best way to combat the negative publicity Sun-Beem’s old formula received is to fight fire with fire, by using the media’s insatiable interest in any new news about Sun-Beem to sell the new formula. This will erase the negative connotations in the minds of former customers, and will ensure that Sun-Beem is once again the best-selling facial cleanser on the market.”

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

Essay:

The argument presents a brand manager of a company advocating the need for publicity, for the success of their new product. However, the premise of the argument misses out key factors and evidences that a reader might need to evaluate the given recommendation. Furthermore, the assumptions in the arguments are not very well-founded and they need to substantiated as well, for the proposal to warrant an approval.

To begin with, the argument primarily rests on the assumption that publicizing of the product would get the brand back in the market. Upon scrutiny, we find that, the previous old-formula had negative results and was not favoured by the public. Thus it's quite far-fetched for the brand manager, to assume that publicizing the new product would create some new interests in the minds of the public, for their new product. In fact, the proposal could have detrimental effects since the brand is already associated with a bad image. The brand manager needs to provide evidences that support a positive consensus given by the public on their brand.

Furthermore, the brand manager claims that improvements have been made to the new formula from the old one, but fails to mention the actual changes that were involved. This would lead a reader to guess the actual intended message and the premise itself becomes ambiguous. The brand manager instead, can venture further into his case and present evidences that specifically validate his theory that significant improvements have actually been made and that the new product is arguably different from the old one. Also it would help the cogency of his argument if he presents proof that the setbacks from the old formula have been specifically addressed.

Finally, the Achillies heel of this argument is the assumption that the improvements in the new product would actually be favoured by the public. No evidences has been provided by the brand manager to substantiate such a consequence and this might very well be interpreted as wishful thinking on the part of the brand manager in supporting his stance. Probably, an unbiased survey or a regional analysis on the wants of the public in various location would provide insights and act as evidence to support the brand manager's contention.

In summary, for the argument to be persuasive the brand manager needs to further substantiate his premises that his proposal, very much depends on. The proposal would be approved only if he makes his claims sound more coherent and rational by providing ground to the various assumptions and claims that he has asserted in his argument.