According to the newsletter, the advice states that the investors should invest on the company Techcorporation. This advice is based on the fact that consumers are willing to shift their satellite television provider and the satellite technology used by the company has been approved by the FTA. However, the advice stands on certain unstated assumptions which need to be considered before properly evaluating the viability of the advice. Therefore, three questions need to be answered before the advice is rendered creditable.
First, does approval by the FTA guarantee better performance? It is possible that the satellites use inherently inferior grade materials and are not up to the mark in performance as compared to the infrastructure used by the current satellite service provider. Moreover, it is likely that the technology was approved due to the lack of recent innovations in the concerned area. If this is true, then the advice does not hold water.
Second, are the consumers even interested in satellite technology? It is likely that owing to the advent of high-speed fiber optic internet, satellite tech has been rendered obsolete. It can be that the new tech is a slight improvement on the previous iteration and offers only a minute improvement in the performance of television broadcasting. However, this does not guarantee that this new innovation will be superior to the wired method of information dissemination. In addition, with the rapid advent of newer technologies, it might not be feasible to invest and hope to achieve guaranteed benefits. Therefore, if this is the case, then the validity of the advice will be significantly undermined.
Third, is the information provided by the consumer survey authentic? It is possible that the survey was conducted unscientifically. Perhaps a small sample was collected that was not representative of the entire population of satellite TV consumers. It might be possible that the respondents were those who were highly dissatisfied with satellite TV performance and were willing to let out their frustration on the matter, while those who were indifferent tacitly refused to take part in the survey. If this is true, then the advice would be rendered useless or even counterproductive.
In conclusion, although the author might have arrived at a sound conclusion, more evidence needs to be presented before the validity of the advice can be properly evaluated. The argument, as it stands now, is seriously flawed because of the unwarranted statements the author has made. Perhaps more information generated through systematic surveys (or carefully designed scientific studies) could make the argument to be evaluated logically.