The recommendation given in this argument vouches for the introduction of call-in advice p
rograms in KICK radio station. The conclusion is based on the premise that the same kind o
f programs have gained huge attention, when they were conducted by WCQP radio station. Mor
eover,a survey is quoted to backup the conclusion. The argument seems convincing at the fi
rst sight. However, on analysis, it is found to be rife with holes and assumptions. A stan
d can be taken only after careful examination of the questions to be answered by the argum
ent.Firstly, the argument mentions that radio station WCQP in Rockville took a decision to
conduct more call-in advice programs. Why such decision was taken at the first hand needs
to be answered. A variety of reasons are possible like: WCQP being a new station, the oth
er programs being not so popular etc... Also, the author mentions that WCQP's radio audien
ce skyrocketed in numbers after the proposal to increase call-in advice programs has been
put forward. Whether the programs were implemented successfully is not known. Moreover, th
e author considers call-in advice programs to be the only cause of increase in the share o
f WCQP's radio audience. It might be the case that the population has gone up in the recen
t years or other programs gaining more popularity among the listeners etc.... Hence, these
questions regarding the actual status of WCQP radio station must be answered.Secondly, th
e author provides insufficient data regarding the survey conducted as an evidence to WCQP'
s success. The number of people considered for the survey and whether they comprise of peo
ple from all age groups and cover all the areas in all the cities has to be ascertained. M
oreover, the authority conducting the survey has to be mentioned. If the authority is an u
nknown one, or if the methods conducted for surveying are not well-established, then it is
least likely that the survey is authentic and reliable. Since the nationwide survey is qu
oted as a substantial evidence, more details regarding the same are necessary. Above all,
the actual number of people interested in listening to the call-in advice programs and the
total population as such must be mentioned in the argument to avoid ambiguity.Thirdly, th
e author commits the fallacy of faulty analogy. He claims that the method that worked out
in WCQP will obviously work out in KICK station. In reality, there might be umpteen number
of differences among the traditional listeners of these two radio stations. It might be t
he case that the listeners of KICK station do not prefer any kind of advice and wish to be
on their own. Incase they are more interested in some other kind of program, then the ult
imate aim of introducing call-in advice programs to attract listeners fails. Also, the age
-groups listening to each radio station and their preferences must be charted out and anal
ysed so as to correspond with one another. Only if these similarities are found, can the a
uthor claim that call-in advice programs will be a roaring success when they are implement
ed by KICK radio station.Thus, the author needs to answer several questions for the argume
nt to be cogent and reasonable. He has to provide information regarding: the need for WCQP
radio station to introduce call-in advice programs; the nationwide survey conducted and t
he team that conducted the survey; the notion of 'success' pertaining to WCQP; the listene
rs' age groups and their interests in both of WCQP and KICK radio stations; the applicabil
ity of WCQP's plan to KICK radio station. This argument would have been more appealing if
the author has quoted the exact numbers for the number of listeners, population participat
ing in the survey etc... Moreover, the author could have firmly established that call-in p
rograms were the only cause for WCQP's success by discounting other possibilities with val
id evidence. Hence, the argument has room for improvement and cannot be taken for implemen
tation in the current state.