This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: hampoo than we do. Therefore, we do not need to consider replacing the HR2 in our shampoo with a more expensive alternative.”
p è° ’ W ðvJ HR2 �� �� ¤¿ ¶ª HR2 9o* * ,* 9o* * ,* * ? BHR2 F�� 6 v’ W * ? B 6500 � p Ł ° ’ B W &B6 *?B The president of the company that produces Glabrous Shampoo argues against removing the ingredient HR2 from the shampoo even though a scientific study claims that prolonged use of HR2 can contribute to hair loss. Three reasons are cited as the basis for this decision. First, it is argued that since the scientific study involved only 500 subjects, it can be disregarded. Second, none of Glabrous’ customers have complained of problems during the past year. And, finally, Glabrous’ competitors use more HR2 per bottle than Glabrous. The president’s decision is problematic in several respects. To begin with, the fact that the scientific study on HR2 involved only 500 subjects is insufficient grounds to dismiss the results of that study. If the subjects for the study were randomly chosen and represent a diverse cross section of the population of...
View Full Document
- Spring '09