Argument writing Zapped and Zonked~

leoyt

Here is the essay question:The following appeared as part of a business plan recommended by the new manager of a musical rock group called Zapped:
“To succeed financially, Zapped needs greater name recognition. It should therefore diversify its commercial enterprises. The rock group Zonked plays the same type of music that Zapped plays, but it is much better known than Zapped because, in addition to its concert tours and four albums, Zonked has a series of posters, a line of clothing and accessories, and a contract with a major advertising agency to endorse a number of different products.”


Here is my answer. Really appreciate your comments and feedback.


Believing that improving name recognition will help themusical company succeed financially, the new manager of Zapped proposes, as asolution to better branding, to diversify the company's commercial enterprises.To rationalize his proposal, the manager makes an analogy to another musicalcompany Zonked, which produces the same type of music as Zapped does but earnsmore fame by setting foot in various commercial activities. Even though thebusiness plan appears to be plausible, further examining reveals that it isbased on some dubious assumption and the argument is biased due to thepartiality and inadequacy in the evidence provided to justify the proposal.
 

First, the business plan rests on an unvalidated hypothesis.It is an assumption of the new manager that greater name recognition guaranteesthe financial success of Zapped. Common sense tells us that besides namerecognition many other factors impact the financial performance of a company,such as production cost, operations efficiency and product popularity, just toname a few. Given no evidence or statement in the proposal proves thisfundamental hypothesis, the business plan could lead to a failure no matter howinspiring it is.


Second, the analogy between Zapped and Zonked does not standlogically, even though superficially the two beings are very much alike. Basedon the similarity that they play the same type of music, the manager perceivesthat Zonked differentiates itself by operating other lines of business and thusachieves better name recognition. It is possible that Zonked is better known inthe market because it boasts superior musical talent, showmanship andrepertoire. No one will be surprised that Zonked is more popular simply thanksto its more a la mode music and performance. Unless he can rule out the otherfactors, the manager should not assert that diversified business activitieshave enhanced the brand name of Zonked, nor should he use it as an evidence toauthenticate the current argument.

Last but not least, the proposal is even weakened as thefinancial performance of Zonked is omitted in the argument. As stated in theplan, the manager's ultimate objective is to improve the firm's financialresult. If Zonked does not perform so well financially as Zapped, the citedcase of the former would eventually undermine the reasoning. Plus, the conceptof "to succeed financially" is ambiguous, which can be interpreted asto increase revenue or to increase profit or to improve some other financialindex in different business scenarios. Nothing is more detrimental than anundefined subject concept in business plan writing.

To conclude, the new manager's business plan does not standup because of the fallacious argument behind it. To render it more persuasiveand more compelling, the manager should clearly articulate the concept of"to succeed financially", testify that name recognition is the maindeterminant of improving Zapped's financial performance and provide evidencesupporting that diversified commercial enterprises help enhance the namerecognition and the financial performance.