37.      
The author rejects the claim that the loud engine noise of American-made Motorcycle X appeals to the manufacturer's customers and explains why they are not attracted to quieter, foreign-made imitations. The author's rejection is based on two reasons. First, the author points out that foreign cars tend to be quieter than similar American-made cars, yet they sell just as well. Secondly, the author claims that ads for Motorcycle X do not emphasize its engine noise; instead, the ads highlight its durability and sleek lines, and employ voice-overs of rock music rather than engine roar. In my view, these reasons do not establish that the quieter engines of the foreign imitations fail to account for their lack of appeal.

      To begin with, the first reason rests on the assumption that what automobile customers find appealing is analogous to what motorcycle customers find appealing. This assumption is weak, since although there are points of comparison between automobiles and motorcycles, there are many dissimilarities as well. For example, headroom, smooth ride, and quiet engines are usually desirable qualities in a car. However, headroom is not a consideration for motorcycle customers; and many motorcycle riders specifically want an exciting, challenging ride, not a smooth one. The same may be true of engine noise; it is possible that motorcyclists like what loud engine noise adds to the experience of motorcycle riding.

      The author's second reason is also problematic. Although the engine noise of Motorcycle X is not explicitly touted in advertisements, it does not necessarily follow that engine noise is not an important selling feature. Because Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the U.S. for over 70 years, its reputation for engine noise is probably already well known and　need not be advertised. Moreover, the advertisers might use rock music on Motorcycle X ad soundtracks for the specific purpose of suggesting, or even simulating, its loud engine noise.

      In conclusion, this author has not provided convincing reasons for rejecting the claim that quieter engines make foreign-made motorcycles less popular. The author's analogy involving foreign car sales is weak, and the claim about Motorcycle X advertisements misses the purpose of including rock music in the ads.
38.       
The author of this article argues that, to reverse declining revenues from campus housing rentals, campus housing officials should decrease the number of available housing units and reduce rent prices on the units. The author's line of reasoning is that fewer available units will limit supply while lower rents will increase demand, thereby improving overall occupancy rates, and that the resulting increase in occupancy rates will, in turn, boost revenues for the campus. This reasoning is unconvincing for several reasons.

      To begin with, the author assumes that boosting occupancy rates will improve revenues. All other factors remaining unchanged, this would be the case. However, the author proposes reducing both the supply of units and their rental prices. Both of these actions would tend to reduce revenues. The author provides no evidence that the revenue-enhancing effect of a higher occupancy rate will exceed the revenue-decreasing effect of reduced supply and price. Without such evidence, the argument is unconvincing.

      Secondly, the author assumes that lowering rents will lead to higher revenues by increasing demand. However, it is possible that demand would decrease, depending on the extent of the rent reduction as well as other factors—such as overall enrollment and the supply and relative cost of off-campus housing. Moreover, even if demand increases by lowering rents, revenues will not necessarily increase as a result. Other factors, such as maintenance and other costs of providing campus housing units and the reduced supply of rental units might contribute to a net decrease in revenue.

      Thirdly, in asserting that lowering rental rates will increase demand, the author assumes that current rental rates are causing low demand. However, low demand for student housing could be a function of other factors. For instance, the student housing units may be old and poorly maintained. Perhaps students find the campus housing rules oppressive, and therefore prefer to live off-campus; or perhaps enrollments are down generally, affecting campus housing occupancy.

      In conclusion, the author of this editorial has not argued effectively for a decrease in the number of available campus housing units and a reduction in rental rates for those units. To strengthen the argument, the author must show that a rent reduction will actually increase demand, and that the revenue-enhancing effect of greater demand will outweigh the revenue-reducing effect of a smaller supply and of lower rental rates.