This Dickens Academy ad claims that any company wanting to improve customer relations will benefit from enrolling its employees in Dickens’ one-day seminars. To support this claim the ad cites Mega-Publishing’s improved sales after its new employees attended Dickens’ seminar as an indication of improved customer relations. As it stands the ad rests on a series of dubious assumptions, and is therefore unconvincing.
　　In the first place, the ad relies on the unsubstantiated assumption that the Mega employees attending the seminar are positioned to influence Mega’s sales and its customer relations. Perhaps these new employees were hired for production, editorial, or personnel positions that have nothing to do with customer relations and that have only an indirect and negligible impact on sales. Without providing evidence that these new employees directly influence Mega’s customer relations and sales, I cannot accept the argument that the Dickens seminar was responsible for any of Mega’s sales or customer-relations improvements subsequent to the seminar.
　　Even if Mega’s seminar attendees are involved in sales and customer relations, the ad unfairly assumes that the improvement in Mega’s sales must be attributable to the seminar. Perhaps the improvement in sales was the result of increasing product demand, new pricing policies, decreased competition, or any one of a myriad of other possible developments. For that matter, perhaps Mega’s new employees as a group already possessed exceptional interpersonal skills, and therefore Mega’s sales and customer relations would have improved during the ensuing months regardless of the seminar. Since the ad fails to consider and rule out these and other alternative explanations for the improvements at Mega, I find the ad’s claim that the Dickens seminar should receive credit unconvincing.
　　Even if the Dickens seminar was responsible for improved sales and customer relations at Mega, the ad’s claim that all other businesses would benefit similarly from a Dickens seminar is unjustified. It is entirely possible that the techniques and skills that participants in Dickens’ seminars learn are effective for the kind of business in which Mega engages, but not for other types of businesses. Although it is possible that Dickens’ training methods would be equally effective for other types of businesses, since Dickens has not provided evidence that this is the case I remain unconvinced by the ad’s claim.
　　In sum, this ad fails to provide key evidence needed to support its claim. To strengthen that claim Dickens must show that Mega’s seminar attendees—and not other employees or other occurrences—were indeed responsible for the subsequent improvement in sales, and that customer relations also improved as a result of their attending the seminar. Dickens must also provide additional success stories—about other types of businesses—to convince me that Dickens’ training methods will work for any business.