Analyse an argument review

[Hemanshu]

The argument that luxury retailers should focus their attention to low-priced

markets because of the higher unemployment rate and consumer fears is not entirely

logically convincing, since it ignores crucial assumptions.

 

Firstly, the argument assumes that average household has stopped

spending the money on essential and non-essential items because of unemployment

rate and consumer fears, yet it failed to give valid reason for this

assumptions. There could be various reasons for decline in expenditure.

Maybe this country resides in a place where people only shop during or before

holidays and current calendar has no holiday in it as of today.

 

Secondly, the author in the argument keep his focus one type of consumer group.

If luxury retailers are affected by unemployment rate they can target

different class of people who are archaic and cupid.

Like during the recession of 1929 in USA, wealthy class decided to contribute

by buying ingenuous stuff from local retailers. This step not even helped retailers

during economy crisis but kept wealth class to fulfill their penchant for luxury.

Also, retailers have the option to export their luxury

goods to foreign country, like most of the Asian countries have done during the economic

crisis.

 

Finally, the argument assumes that luxurious items will be the first to get affected because

of present economic climate therefore retailers have to focus on non-luxurious one.

Again assumptions doesn’t hold good. Decrease in house hold expenditure doesn’t necessarily mean people will

only buy non-essential items and none of the luxurious items will be sold.

Even if the household expenditure is less people can be thrift and frugal, say

someone is having wedding or someone is planning a birthday party , whatsoever may

be the economic conditions those people will still buy luxurious items if they need.

 

Thus the argument is not completely sound. The evidence in support of the conclusion

that the retailers should focus on lower priced markets due to decrease in expenditure

from average household because of higher unemployment and consumer fears

does little to prove the conclusion, since it does not address the assumptions

already raised. Ultimately the argument might have strengthen if the author

could have mention the reasons for unemployment and have given valid support for

the retailers to switch to non-essential items.