GRE Argument Essay 5
People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor’s prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective.
This argument is about the two competing products, Coldex and Cold-Away. Both the medicines are cold medicines available over-the-counter. Both the brands compete with each other and accuse each other for some side effect. According to the author, Coldex is responsible for causing high blood pressure and Cold-Away causes drowsiness. Here, the author seems a little biased as without providing any evidence, he is suggesting that as Cold-Away is in the market for a longer period, it is more effective and it should be the clear choice of customers.
The logic provided by the author is very dubious and unconvincing. The author is simply trying to boost the consumer’s ego by saying that the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people. Though it is a good advertising tactic used by the company, it cannot be considered as enough proof of Cold-Away being more effective.
The author is giving one more logic that Cold-Away is in the market for a longer period. However, this fact also does not add any effectiveness to the argument. The new medicine might have new effective ingredients. It is not necessary that well-established products are better than newer ones. Moreover, latest medicines often make use of new pharmaceutical developments than the existing products. Instead of this, the author should have concentrated on the plus and minus points of the two medicines.
According to the author, Cold-Away is used by more hospitals than Coldex, that is the reason enough to consider Cold-Away more effective. This is again an advertising gimmick and not a proof that it is more effective. There might be some other reasons for hospitals using Cold-Away. It is just an assumption of the author that the hospitals are recommending Cold-Away because it is better than Coldex. It might be that doctors are using this medicine because of its drowsiness inducing effect to calm their patients. For that matter, perhaps hospitals use Cold-Away primarily for this effect rather than as a cold medication.
One more problem with this argument is the side effect of Coldex. If Coldex is the cause of high blood pressure then, obviously no doctor will recommend it. However, people who do not suffer with the problem of high blood pressure can still use it. Thus, Coldex’s side effect is irrelevant in choosing between the two products. Moreover, if a person without high blood pressure wishes to avoid drowsiness during the treatment of cold, Coldex would seem to be the preferable medication than Cold-Away.
The author has not offered convincing evidence to support his views. He should have strengthened his argument by providing the evidence that the doctors and hospitals use Cold-Away because of its effectiveness in treating cold. A data of clinical research or a reliable data of general survey would have supported the argument in a better way. It should not be based on assumptions. In the present form, it just looks like an advertisement tactic to increase the sale of one product. It is just trying to persuade people to buy Cold-Away.