Argument

The argument that retailers should replace some of the products intended to attract the younger consumers with products intended to attract the middle-aged consumers is not entirely logically convincing, since it ignores certain crucial assumptions.

First, the argument omits the assumption that the business volumes of both the middle-aged consumers and the younger consumers are the same. If the business volume of the middle-aged consumers’ 39% is smaller than that of the younger consumers’ 25%, the retail sales will not increase during the next decade.

Second, even if the business volumes of both the middle-aged consumers and the younger consumers were the same in the last decade, the increase of the middle-aged people in the next decade is not the same as the increase of the retail expenditure, for the retail trade depends more on such factors as the economic circumstances, people’s consuming desire.

Finally, the argument never assumes the increase of the younger consumers within the next decade. If the younger consumers increase at the same rate and spend the same amount of money on the goods and services of department stores, the retailers should never ignore them.

Thus the argument is not completely sound. The evidence in support of the conclusion that the growing number of middle-aged people within the next decade does little to prove the conclusionвЂ"that department stores should begin to replace some of their products to attract the middle-aged consumers since it does not address the assumptions I have already raised. Ultimately, the argument might have been strengthened by making it clear that the business volumes of both types of consumers are the same and comparable, that the increase of a certain type of consumers are correlated with the increase of the retail sales, and that the growth rate of the younger consumers are the same as that of the middle-aged consumers.