写了篇AA。麻烦nn指正下，叩谢！

In this argument, the author proposes that the company should discontinue produce and sell the deluxe air filter while concentrate its advertising efforts on the economy filter. To support his proposal, the author argues that the sale of the economy filter has dramatically decreased since the deluxe filter was launched. Furthermore, he indicates that the deluxe air filter lasts twice as long as the economy air filter does therefore will hinder the sales. Finally, the author concludes that the deluxe air filter should be totally replaced by economy air filter to maximize profits and push sales. At the first glance, the argument seems to be convincing and well-organized, but careful scrutiny reveals that the author's conclusion is based on some dubious assumption. Furthermore, deep examination of the reasoning shows that the author commits several fallacious mistakes while developing his argument. Consequently, the conclusion is misleading due to these logical flaws.

First, the author claims that the deluxe air filter erodes the market of the economy one because the sales of the economy air filter decreased significantly after the deluxe air filter were introduced to the market. By blaming the deluxe air filter as the reason for the declining sales of economy filter, the author mistakenly consider the temporal coincidence of two events as an indication of a causal relationship between them. According to his reasoning, deluxe filter is the cause for the sales of economy filter to decrease because marketing of deluxe filter happened before the declining of the sales of economy filter. For example, the deceased sales for the economy filter could result from many other market factor, such as the competitor's aggressive promotion, the economy filter losing its marketing edge for its outdated technology and so forth. As a result, any efforts offered to address this question must based on a more thorough investigation that encompass every possible aspects of the event to narrow down and locate the direct cause of it.

Secondly, the author reasons that the deluxe filter lasts twice as long as the economy filter does and although the deluxe filter sells for 50 percent more than economy filter, the obvious profit advantage still cannot offset the amount of total sales. As a result, he proposes to regain the big sales by discontinuing the deluxe filter and marketing economy filter. This strategy is faulty and unjustified. To validate his reasoning, the author should compare the raw materials and labor costs of these two filters to better justify their profits. What if not only the deluxe filter sales 50 percent more than the economy filter does, the deluxe filter but also cost as many materials as the economy filter does or even less. Only if the author includes exhaustive information about the two products in his argument, could his conclusion be solid.

In summary, this argument is neither persuasive nor well reasoned as it stands. The author's argument is based on some seriously flawed reasoning. Accordingly, it is imprudent for the author to claim that replacing deluxe filter with economy filter will provide profit edge to company. Had the author shown that his argument is based on a comprehensive and thorough investigation on the market and the two products, could he validate his argument.