57.       
　　The conclusion of this argument is that technological¹ innovation as well as the evolution of architectural styles and design will be minimized in the future. The author's line of reasoning is that the imposition of strict safety codes on public buildings inhibits² the evolution of architectural styles and design, because they discourage technological innovation within the building industry. Furthermore, the strictness of the codes governing public buildings discourages technological innovation because the surest way for architects and builders to pass the codes is to construct buildings that use the same materials and methods that are currently allowed. This argument is unconvincing for two reasons.

      In the first place, the author's conclusion goes beyond the evidence presented. The evidence cited pertains³ only to the construction of public buildings, yet the author draws a conclusion about the building industry as a whole. Technological innovation and architectural experimentation⁴ in style and design in the construction of private buildings is not precluded⁵ by the reasons cited. Consequently, in the absence of evidence that similar problems beset⁶ the construction of privately⁷ owned buildings, the author's conclusion is not warranted.

      In the second place, it is not evident that the strict safety codes governing public buildings will have the effects predicted by the author. Architectural styles and design are not dictated⁸ solely⁹ by the materials or the methods employed in construction. Consequently, it is premature¹⁰ to conclude that little evolution in style and design will occur because the materials and methods will likely remain the same. Moreover, technological innovation is not restricted to the use of new materials and methods. Significant technological innovation can be achieved by applying existing methods to new situations and by finding new uses for familiar materials.

      In conclusion, the author has failed to make the case for the claim that technological innovation as well as the evolution of architectural styles and design will be minimized in the future. To strengthen the argument the author would have to show that similar safety code restrictions¹¹ impede¹² the evolution of the design and the innovation of new technologies in the construction of private buildings. Additionally, the author must show that materials and methods are the prime determinants of architectural style and design.

58.     
　　In an advertising¹³ experiment, Big Board, Inc. displayed the name and picture of a . little-known athlete on several of its local billboards¹⁵ over a 3-month period. Because the experiment increased recognition of the athlete's name, Big Boards now argues that local companies will increase their sales if they advertise their products on Big Board's billboards. This argument is unconvincing for two important reasons.

      The main problem with this argument is that the advertising experiment with the athlete shows only that name recognition can be increased by billboard¹⁴ advertising; it does not show that product sales can be increased by this form of advertising. Name recognition, while admittedly an important aspect of a product's selling potential, is not the only reason merchandise sells. Affordability¹⁶, quality, and desirability are equally, if not more, important features a product must possess in order to sell. To suggest, as Big Board's campaign does, that name recognition alone is sufficient to increase sales is simply ludicrous.

      Another problem with the argument is that while the first survey—in which only five percent of 15,000 randomly-selected residents could name the athlete—seems reliable, the results of the second survey are questionable¹⁷ on two grounds. First, the argument provides no information regarding how many residents were polled in the second survey or how they were selected. Secondly¹⁸, the argument does not indicate the total number of respondents to the second survey. In the absence of this information about the second survey, it is impossible to determine the significance of its results.

      In conclusion, Big Board's argument is not convincing. To strengthen the argument, Big Board must provide additional information regarding the manner in which the second survey was conducted. It must also provide additional evidence that an increase in name recognition will result in an increase in sales.