The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of marketing at Dura-Sock, Inc."A recent study of our customers suggests that our company is wasting the money it spends on its patented Endure manufacturing process, which ensures that our socks ar

The vice president of marketing at Dura-Sock, Inc. recommends discontinuing use of the patented Endure manufacturing process, this alteration should increase the corporation's proceeds and will not discourage customers from purchasing company's product. This statement is buttressed by evidence which is connected with the conclusion by assumptions which ought to be carefully scrutinized in order to gauge the soundness of the argument.

First of all, we are told that despite the fact that the well-advertised patented process which guarantee that the Dura-Sock's product will last for two years, an average customer buys new socks each three month. However, does it mean that the clients do not appreciate the socks' durability or that they throw the old pair away? Probably the customers buy new pair because of necessity to have a diversity of styles and colors or to gift a pair of this wonderful pair to someone. In other words, the writer tends to neglect other possible motives of the purchasers.

Secondly, the originator of the argument avers that the survey, which was recently conducted in the largest market, northeastern United States cities, has demonstrated that these purchasers the most value Dura-Sock's appearance. The writer assumes that the survey of northeastern cities may represent the all customers of the company; however, perhaps buyers from rural areas of northeastern states will value other qualities of the socks. Moreover, other southern and northern as well as other parts of the country may admire the sock durability and value them not less than their appearance. In other words, it is unreasonable to extrapolate the result of the survey which was carried out on one part of country on the whole population.

Finally, the argument claims that these findings tail that the corporation may cease its usage of the patented technology and that this step will inevitably lead to increase of company's profits. However, does the author bolsters this claim properly? Firstly, he or she does not manage to demonstrate that the discounting of the process will bring money. The reconfiguration of equipment may cost a significant amount of money, moreover, the alteration may lead to the decline in Dura-Sock's sales and thus the company's profit will not increase owing to the fact that author does not proved that customers do not value the sock's durability. Thus the change may not bring the expected result.

In conclusion, the author of the argument asserts that corporation is wasting money to ensure that their product lasting for at least two years. At the same time, to given evidence has failed to prove it. Perhaps the fulfillment of the proposed policy will lead to disastrous fall and thus decline in company's profits.