The following appeared in a memorandum from the president of a company that makes shampoo:
“A widely publicized study claims that HR2, a chemical compound in our shampoo, can contribute to hair loss after prolonged use. This study, however, involved only 500 subjects. Furthermore, we have received no complaints from our customers during the past year, and some of our competitors actually use more HR2 per bottle of shampoo than we do. Therefore, we do not need to consider replacing the HR2 in our shampoo with a more expensive alternative.”
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.
The argument states that the company’s product is not causing hair loss among its customers, and therefore the company does not need to take any action in response to this ‘controversial’ claim. This statement has a number of flaws, the first of which is that the study itself is highly questionable. If the study were indeed a legitimate piece of research, then the statement that ‘we have not received any complaints from our customers during the past year’ would be quite misleading, as customers who complain are usually the first to be affected by a product’s adverse effects
One of the principal problems with this argument is that the company does not disclose the name of the study, making it very difficult to determine whether or not it is a well-researched piece of research. One might also argue that the study was conducted by a well-known organization, such as a research institute or a government agency, but the evidence provided is not convincing. For example, the company does not disclose how the subjects are selected, how the sample size was determined, or what criteria were used to exclude certain individuals. Without this information, it is impossible to establish that the study is statistically accurate
Another weakness in the argument is the fact that, although it is claimed that the company has received no complaints, this does not imply that customers have not been adversely affected by the product. It could just as easily mean that customers have not complained. Companies often go to great lengths to mask the true severity of a product’s adverse effects, and customers might be reluctant to complain for fear of having their money refunded. The company’s claims to having received no complaints do not therefore provide a valid conclusion about the product’s safety
Furthermore, the claim that the company’s competitors use more HR2 per bottle of shampoo than does the company does not prove or disprove that HR2 is unsafe. Assuming that this is the case, it does not necessarily mean that the product is harmful. If HR2 is in fact harmful, then the company’s competitors could be using less of it in an effort to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity. Given that the company does not have much information about its competition, it cannot provide a valid conclusion about the safety of HR2
The company’s statement about ‘our competitors’ use of HR2′ is also problematic. The argument that ‘our competitors’ use of HR2′ proves HR2 to be safe ignores the fact that the company does not present any information about its ‘competitors’, nor are any sources cited. The company’s assertion that it uses ‘more HR2 per bottle of shampoo’ is also dubious. A competitor’s use of a certain product, however, does not prove that that product is safe. The company’s competitors could be using less of the product, or even using an alternative treatment. Finally, the company’s statement that ‘some of our competitors actually use more HR2 per bottle of shampoo than we do’ does not provide any valid evidence to support its claim that competitors’ use of HR2 is an indicator of its safety. It also does not explain why the company uses ‘our competitors’
Perhaps the best evidence offered in support of the company’s argument is the fact that its customers have not complained of hair loss. However, this fact does not prove that HR2 is not causing hair loss. It could just as easily mean that the company’s customers are being careful to avoid potential harm. Furthermore, the fact that the company does not receive any complaints does not mean that its customers are not adversely affected. In some cases, a company might receive complaints from customers who would rather not complain, for fear of being made to feel stupid or by fear of embarrassment. The company’s customers might also be reluctant to complain because they assume that the company will fix the problem, and that doing so will inconvenience the company
Finally, the company’s argument that ‘we do not use HR2 in our products’ is irrelevant. The company has not presented any information about which products it manufactures or the services it provides, so the statement is irrelevant. This is another piece of evidence that the company does not present in a way that is convincing. Without this information, it is impossible to determine whether the company’s products actually contain HR2.