Two years ago radio station WCQP in Rockville decided to increase the number of call in advice programs that it broadcast since that time its share of the radio audience in the Rockville listening area has increased significantly Given WCQP s recent succe

The recommendation given in this argument vouches for the introduction of call-in advice programs in KICK radio station. The conclusion is based on the premise that the same kind of programs have gained huge attention, when they were conducted by WCQP radio station. Moreover,a survey is quoted to backup the conclusion. The argument seems convincing at the first sight. However, on analysis, it is found to be rife with holes and assumptions. A stand can be taken only after careful examination of the questions to be answered by the argument.

Firstly, the argument mentions that radio station WCQP in Rockville took a decision to conduct more call-in advice programs. Why such decision was taken at the first hand needs to be answered. A variety of reasons are possible like: WCQP being a new station, the other programs being not so popular etc... Also, the author mentions that WCQP's radio audience skyrocketed in numbers after the proposal to increase call-in advice programs has been put forward. Whether the programs were implemented successfully is not known. Moreover, the author considers call-in advice programs to be the only cause of increase in the share of WCQP's radio audience. It might be the case that the population has gone up in the recent years or other programs gaining more popularity among the listeners etc.... Hence, these questions regarding the actual status of WCQP radio station must be answered.

Secondly, the author provides insufficient data regarding the survey conducted as an evidence to WCQP's success. The number of people considered for the survey and whether they comprise of people from all age groups and cover all the areas in all the cities has to be ascertained. Moreover, the authority conducting the survey has to be mentioned. If the authority is an unknown one, or if the methods conducted for surveying are not well-established, then it is least likely that the survey is authentic and reliable. Since the nationwide survey is quoted as a substantial evidence, more details regarding the same are necessary. Above all, the actual number of people interested in listening to the call-in advice programs and the total population as such must be mentioned in the argument to avoid ambiguity.

Thirdly, the author commits the fallacy of faulty analogy. He claims that the method that worked out in WCQP will obviously work out in KICK station. In reality, there might be umpteen number of differences among the traditional listeners of these two radio stations. It might be the case that the listeners of KICK station do not prefer any kind of advice and wish to be on their own. Incase they are more interested in some other kind of program, then the ultimate aim of introducing call-in advice programs to attract listeners fails. Also, the age-groups listening to each radio station and their preferences must be charted out and analysed so as to correspond with one another. Only if these similarities are found, can the author claim that call-in advice programs will be a roaring success when they are implemented by KICK radio station.

Thus, the author needs to answer several questions for the argument to be cogent and reasonable. He has to provide information regarding: the need for WCQP radio station to introduce call-in advice programs; the nationwide survey conducted and the team that conducted the survey; the notion of 'success' pertaining to WCQP; the listeners' age groups and their interests in both of WCQP and KICK radio stations; the applicability of WCQP's plan to KICK radio station. This argument would have been more appealing if the author has quoted the exact numbers for the number of listeners, population participating in the survey etc... Moreover, the author could have firmly established that call-in programs were the only cause for WCQP's success by discounting other possibilities with valid evidence. Hence, the argument has room for improvement and cannot be taken for implementation in the current state.