The following appeared as part of a recommendation from the business manager of a department store:
“Local clothing stores reported that their profits decreased, on average, for the three-month period between August 1 and October 31. Stores that sell products for the home reported that, on average, their profits increased during this same period. Clearly, consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing. To take advantage of this trend, we should reduce the size of our clothing departments and enlarge our home furnishings and household products departments.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
This is an argument that attempts to show that if department stores cut down the size of their clothing departments, then more people will be inclined to buy more household items. The manager suggests that if customers purchase more household items, then department stores will make more money than they would if they just stuck with selling clothing. However, this reasoning is flawed because department stores have a variety of needs, one of which is to sell clothing. Cutting down the size of their clothing departments would not benefit department stores and could even cause problems for them
I have some issues with the way this recommendation was written. First, it assumes that department stores are so profitable that cutting their clothing departments would not affect their bottom line. However, this is not necessarily true. If department stores are losing money, then reducing the size of their clothing departments would only serve to further drain their coffers. Furthermore, department stores have many competitors, so cutting the size of their clothing departments could alienate their customers. For example, if Sears cuts the size of its clothing departments, then Target could step in to fill the void. Target has brand recognition and can advertise their inexpensive clothing more effectively than Sears. Cutting Sears’ clothing departments, therefore, could be even more expensive for Sears in the long run
Second, the manager makes the assumption that consumers buy more household items than clothing. This is not necessarily true. Consumers, especially older ones, buy clothes for practical reasons, such as for work and for going out, so cutting the size of their clothing departments would not cause them to buy more household items. Moreover, based on research, department stores do not sell as many clothes to older people as younger people. Therefore, cutting the size of their clothing departments would not be an effective way of increasing the number of household goods that people buy
Furthermore, department stores sell many different types of items besides clothes. For example, they sell electronics, appliances, furniture, jewelry, and books. Cutting the size of their clothing departments would reduce the number of items that they sell, which would negatively impact their overall profits. Cutting their clothing departments, therefore, would not be a wise move for them
One of the main problems with this recommendation is that it makes the assumption that the reduction in clothing departments would lead to an increase in sales of household items. This assumption is based on past sales, but there is no guarantee that this will continue in the future. By assuming that things will always continue as they have in the past, the recommendation ignores the possibility that customers could start shopping at other stores. For example, if Target started selling inexpensive furniture, then customers might be tempted to buy furniture there instead of at Sears. Therefore, even if the manager made the right assumptions, he/she might still end up making the wrong decision, and this recommendation would end up being ineffective.