The following appeared in a print advertisement for a dietary supplement:
“According to a recent study, professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain, a new protein supplement, over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. Since Train & Gain is now available without prescription at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to professional athletes. Try Train & Gain today and you too can boost your strength and achieve professional-level performance in just a few months.”
Author has referred to a study. According to which professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain, a protein supplement, over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. He also indicates that the protein supplement was available only with a prescription and now that is not the case. And hence he concludes that the supplement can be used by anyone who wishes to boost his/her strength and achieve professional level performance in few months, and that too without any prescription.
However, the author has assumed that only the protein supplement, Train & Gain, is the sole reason for increase in strength of almost 20%, for professional bodybuilders. Furthermore the author has generalized his assumption to all, including the non-professional athletes. He has not stated any reason or mentioned statistical data, based on which he has generalized the result for all.
Furthermore, author has neglected the parameters of a bodybuilder being a professional bodybuilder. For instance, the training undergone by professionals, their diet, the guidance they receive, efforts put by them. Also, he has neglected the side-effects which can be caused by the protein supplement, and the reason why it was initially available with a prescription only.
Hence, the author with all his assumptions regarding the protein supplement being the sole reason for increase in strength and neglecting the efforts put by professional athletes, cannot generalize his conclusion. Thus the argument put forth by the author is flawed.![]()
“According to a recent study, professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain, a new protein supplement, over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. Since Train & Gain is now available without prescription at all major pharmacies, superior results are no longer limited to professional athletes. Try Train & Gain today and you too can boost your strength and achieve professional-level performance in just a few months.”
Author has referred to a study. According to which professional bodybuilders who used Train & Gain, a protein supplement, over the course of three months experienced an increase in measured strength of up to 20%. He also indicates that the protein supplement was available only with a prescription and now that is not the case. And hence he concludes that the supplement can be used by anyone who wishes to boost his/her strength and achieve professional level performance in few months, and that too without any prescription.
However, the author has assumed that only the protein supplement, Train & Gain, is the sole reason for increase in strength of almost 20%, for professional bodybuilders. Furthermore the author has generalized his assumption to all, including the non-professional athletes. He has not stated any reason or mentioned statistical data, based on which he has generalized the result for all.
Furthermore, author has neglected the parameters of a bodybuilder being a professional bodybuilder. For instance, the training undergone by professionals, their diet, the guidance they receive, efforts put by them. Also, he has neglected the side-effects which can be caused by the protein supplement, and the reason why it was initially available with a prescription only.
Hence, the author with all his assumptions regarding the protein supplement being the sole reason for increase in strength and neglecting the efforts put by professional athletes, cannot generalize his conclusion. Thus the argument put forth by the author is flawed.