86.        In this argument the author reasons that the failure of Company B portends a
similar fate for Company A. The grounds for this prediction are similarities that exist
between the two companies. The line of reasoning is that since both companies produce
video-game hardware and software and both enjoy a large share of the market for these
products, the failure of one is a reliable predictor of the failure of the other. This
argument is unconvincing.
      The major problem with the argument is that the stated similarities between
Company A and B are insufficient to support the conclusion that Company A will suffer
a fats similar to Company B's. In fact, the similarities stated are irrelevant to that
conclusion. Company B did not fail because of its market share or because of the
general type of product it produced; it failed because children became bored with its
particular line of products. Consequently, the mere fact that Company A holds a large
share of the video-game hardware and software market does not support the claim that
Company A will also fail.
      An additional problem with the argument is that there might be relevant
differences between Company A and Company B, which further undermine the
conclusion. For example, Company A's line of products may differ from Company B's
in that children do not become bored with them. Another possible difference is that
Company B's share of the market may have been entirely domestic whereas Company
A has a large share of the international market.
      In conclusion this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion the author
would have to show that there are sufficient relevant similarities between Company A
and Company B as well as no relevant differences between them.