many people believe that a few individuals or small groups (family, friends, teachers, celebrities, for example ) have caused them to think and behave in the way they do. Yet it is always society as a whole that defines us and our attitudes, not a few in
...new house. Second, it is true that the incomes of S have risen much faster than the average, but with the increase population, the personal income may have been lessened. And further there maybe a higher inflation rate, that all the prices of commodities have raised so the capacity of consume of people have been weakened. Besides, people may have desire to buy other commodities other than buy a new house. So there is no evidence that there will be more people to buy new house in S. Furthermore, the arguer commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. He cites nationwide result that "sales of houses priced above $150.000 have increased more than have sales of lower-priced houses", but this does not ensure that people in S prefer this kind of houses. It is possible that most of people in this city like higher priced houses. He does not give us any information that people in S like what kind of houses. This is a very fatal fault of marketing, the company should do a very careful investigation to know the need of consumer in the city to have a more actual knowledge of the need and then have a more detailed plan in the company's operation. Thirdly, the arguer oversimplifies the profit-making. Admittedly that there will be a higher need in lower-priced house, but there is not guarantee that all the people will buy his company's house other than other company's. People care about many other things besides prices ...