The following appeared in a memorandum from the director of marketing for a pharmaceutical company:
“According to a survey of 5,000 urban residents, the prevalence of stress headaches increases with educational level, so that stress headaches occur most often among people with graduate-school degrees. It is well established that, nationally, higher educational levels usually correspond with higher levels of income. Therefore, in marketing our new pain remedy, Omnilixir, we should send free samples primarily to graduate students and to people with graduate degrees, and we should concentrate on advertising in professional journals rather than in general interest magazines.”
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.
While on the surface, the argument appears sound, there are flaws in the reasoning which, when examined more closely, reveal it to be unsound. Firstly, the argument assumes that the cause of stress is financial, rather than psychological, which is not supported by any facts in the argument
In reality, there is generally no way of determining the cause of an individual’s stress. Stress could be the result of any number of factors, including financial, political, familial, social, or environmental. The assertion that stress is caused by financial problems is no more than a self-serving generalization. While it is true that income is generally correlated to education, it is also true that there are many people without college degrees who lead happy, stable lives. Conversely, there are a large number of college graduates who do not lead happy, stable lives. These examples simply demonstrate the point that correlation does not equal causation. Perhaps, for some people, stress is caused by having inadequate income; for others, stress might be caused by having too much money
The second flaw in the argument is the assertion that higher educational levels usually correspond with higher income levels. While it is true that there is generally a correlation between income and education, this is not necessarily true for all groups. There are many successful individuals without college degrees, and there are many highly educated people who live in poverty. The correlation between income and education is also often overstated because the variables that influence income are not well-measured in all studies. For example, in some studies, income is correlated with age, as older people are often more financially secure. This means that, if a study is composed primarily of retirees, those with graduate degrees are likely to appear wealthier than they actually are. Furthermore, some people with graduate degrees are forced to work in jobs that pay low wages, while other people without graduate degrees work lucrative jobs that offer them plenty of spare time
The third flaw in the reasoning is that money spent on advertising in professional journals rather than in general interest magazines is more economically sound. This assumption is based on a false dichotomy, since money could be spent on both kinds of advertising. In reality, it is far more cost effective to advertise in professional journals, as the cost per reader in professional journals is usually quite low. For example, a pharmaceutical company could advertise in medical journals, where doctors and other healthcare professionals are more likely read and act on the information. A pharmaceutical company could also advertise in popular magazines, such as Time or Sports Illustrated, which, while read by many people, are less likely to have professionals who are interested in the advertised drug. A pharmaceutical company could advertise in medical journals, popular magazines, or both, depending on its marketing strategy. Furthermore, if the company chooses to target the general public rather than healthcare professionals, it must consider the cost of advertising in mass-market magazines, which tend to be quite expensive
The argument presented in this memorandum is flawed because it contains a number of logical fallacies. If the director of marketing for a pharmaceutical company were to carefully examine the reasons for stress among educated individuals, he might discover that stress is caused by differences in lifestyle or personality. Alternatively, he might discover that education is correlated with stress due to one’s profession or financial situation. If the director of marketing were aware of this, he would realize that conclusions drawn from the argument are false and that trying to exploit this false correlation is a waste of company resources.