The radio station claims that its new format is popular with listeners because more than three-quarters of the listeners who call in requests to the station say they are pleased with the format. █████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ █ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██████████
A radio station concludes that its new format is popular because more than three-quarters of listeners who call in requests to the station say they like the format. The author points out that the radio station’s conclusion might not be true. The author’s view is based on an analogy to political candidates. Just as interviewing only people who have decided to vote for a candidate wouldn’t necessarily give you an accurate view of the candidate’s popularity, relying only on the listeners who call in to the radio station might not give an accurate view of the popularity of the new format.
The author relies on an analogy to show that the radio station’s reasoning is flawed.
The argument proceeds by
concluding that an █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██ █████ ██ █ ██████ █████████ ██ █ ██████ █████
referring to an █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ █████████
questioning the legitimacy ██ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ █ ████ ██████████ █████████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ████████
providing a direct ██████████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████
claiming that an █████████ █████ ██ █ █████████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████████