93. The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of KMTV, a television station.
“Applications for advertising spots on KMTV, our local cable television channel, decreased last year. Meanwhile a neighboring town’s local channel, KOOP, changed its focus to farming issues and reported an increase in advertising applications for the year. To increase applications for advertising spots, KMTV should focus its programming on farming issues as well.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

In this editorial KMTV, a local cable television channel is urged to change its programming focus to farming issues in order to increase advertising revenues. The author’s line of reasoning is that KOOP’s change in focus was the cause of its increase in advertising and that since this tactic worked for KOOP it will work for KMTV as well. This line of reasoning is flawed in three important respects.
To begin with, the belief that the change in focus to farming issues was the cause of KOOP’s increase in advertising applications is unfounded. The only evidence offered to support this belief is that the change in focus preceded the increase in applications. Unfortunately, this evidence is insufficient to establish the causal claim in question. Consequently, it is possible that KOOP’s change in focus may not have been related to its increase in revenue in the manner required by the author’s argument.
In addition, the author assumes that the towns that KMTV and KOOP serve are sufficiently similar to warrant a conclusion based on an analogy between them. Even if we accept the view that KOOP’s change in programming focus to farming issues was responsible for its increase in advertising applications, differences between the towns could drastically alter the outcome for KMTV. For example, if KMTV serves a metropolitan area with little interest in agriculture, changing its programming focus to farming issues would most likely be disastrous. Lacking information about the towns KOOP and KMTV serve it is difficult to assess the author’s recommendation.
Finally, the author assumes that KMTV’s decrease in applications for advertising was due to its programming. However, since the author provides no evidence to support this assumption, it may be that the decrease was caused by other factors, such as recession in the local economy or transmission problems at the station. Without ruling out these and other possible causes the author cannot confidently conclude that KMTV’s programming was responsible for the decrease in advertising applications at hat station.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to provide additional evidence for the claim that KOOP’s change in focus was responsible for its increase in advertising applications and that KMTV’s decrease in applications was due to its programming. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that the towns that KOOP and KMTV serve are sufficiently similar to justify the analogy between them.