The following is from a campaign by Big Boards Inc. to convince companies in River City that their sales will increase if they use Big Boards billboards for advertising their locally manufactured products:

“The potential of Big Boards to increase sales of your products can be seen from an experiment we conducted last year. We increased public awareness of the name of the current national women’s marathon champion by publishing her picture and her name on billboards in River City for a period of three months. Before this time, although the champion had just won her title and was receiving extensive national publicity, only five percent of 15,000 randomly surveyed residents of River City could correctly name the champion when shown her picture; after the three-month advertising experiment, 35 percent of respondents from a second survey could supply her name.”

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.

Big Boards Inc. offers a persuasive argument, but there are a few problems with their logic. First, it is not clear whether the second survey was conducted before or after the first. If after, then it is reasonable to conclude that the champion’s name gained greater recognition thanks to Big Boards Inc.’s advertising campaign. However, if the second survey was done first, then it is difficult to justify the conclusion that Big Boards Inc. was responsible for the champion’s increased popularity. It could just as easily be the case that Big Boards Inc.’s advertising campaign had no effect on the champion’s name recognition and that the second survey was flawed

Second, the Big Boards Inc. argues that 35 percent of respondents in the second survey were able to supply the name of the champion. But 15,000 is a fairly large sample, and 35 percent is a tiny proportion of that. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the survey used a multiple-choice format or whether the respondent was asked to supply the name. If the latter, then it is possible that many people in the second survey supplied the name incorrectly. For example, they may simply have guessed, or the name could have been on the tip of their tongue but they could not remember it. In that case, Big Boards Inc.’s advertising campaign may have had more of an impact than the study suggests

Third, the study itself is not published anywhere. It is merely quoted as ‘the experiment we conducted last year.’ Big Boards Inc. should be able to provide concrete evidence that this experiment was conducted. For example, it could provide copies of the surveys that were conducted before and after the advertising period, or it could publish the data from the second survey, or it could describe the results of the study. Without this information, it is impossible to assess how well the study was conducted, whether the conclusions drawn are supported by the data, or whether any changes in the study’s design could improve its accuracy

These problems cast doubt on the validity of the study’s conclusions. Big Boards Inc. could have a successful advertising campaign if they are able to correct these problems. One way to do so would be to include more evidence in their argument. For example, if they publish the names of the survey respondents, then it would be fairer to assume that those respondents did not supply the name incorrectly

Another way to improve the argument would be to increase the sample size. An increase in sample size would enhance the accuracy of the study. It would make it easier to determine the impact that the advertising campaign had on brand recognition. For example, more respondents would supply the correct name if they were asked to do so. Finally, it would be advisable to make a double-blind survey of the entire population to ensure that the survey administered was the same one used by the Big Boards Inc. researchers

Before Big Boards Inc. is able to convince River City companies to erect Big Boards billboards, the company should conduct further research to establish the validity of the study.

Total
0
Shares
Total
0
Share