The following appeared as part of an article in a business magazine."A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep t

The argument claims that according to a recent study conducted among advertising executives, the companies whose advertising executives sleep less than six hours are more profitable. Stated in this way, the argument exempflies poor-reasoning and ill-constructed cause and effect relation. The conclusion of the argument relies on conclusion for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument presents a survey conducted among the executives. However, the argument does not provide any information regarding the reliability of the experiment. For example, there is no source that states this experiment is conducted by whom. Moreover, the methodology that was applied when conducting this experiment is not specified. It might be the case that researchers applied interview-centered approach and directed the executives to reach the results researchers desire. In addition, executives might answer the questions in a biased way to be seen more hardworking. Hence, their answers should not be considered as reliable sources to reach exact conclusions. Without convincing information that explains the reliability of the experiment, concluding with the argument above is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

Second, the argument claims that advertising executives who need fewer sleeping hours are the reason of the success of these firms. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any clear correlation between the success of the firm and hours of sleep of advertising executives. To illustrate, there might be other reasons that lie beneath the success of the firms. The process that is the reason of thrive of companies might be different for each company. For example, their investments in modern technologies might enable some companies to decrease the amount of money they spend on production. In addition, good management practices such as good contracts make being a lucrative firm possible. Furthermore, the other executives might be excellent in their areas hence, it might be the reason of the success of this company. Consequently, the argument would be much clearer if it explicitly stated the relation between success of the company and sleep hours of marketing executives.

Finally, even if the advertising executives of these companies are the main reason of the success of the company, the relation between sleeping hour of executives and their success might just be a coincidence. For example, the ones who sleep less might have spent more years in their sector and their experience enables them to excel in their area. In addition, personal traits of these executives might play an important role in the success of their firms. Moreover, the work environment that they created in their department might explain the roots of their success. Hence, the advice at the end of the argument could not be considered as a valid one without additional detail that might be effective in the success of these executives.

Finally, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore, it is unconvincing. The argument would be much clearer if it explicitly explained the reliability of the experiment. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this case, the other possible reasons of the success of companies and advertising executives. Without convincing explanations, the argument would remain unsupported and open to debate