The topic of the argument is "Changing Corn Syrup's Name to Corn Sugar is Just Plain Dumb." John Tantillo, a marketing expert, is making the argument. He feels "Corn syrup is still going to be corn syrup no matter what it is called." The argument is made in an online article on FoxNews.com. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/24/john-tantillo-corn-syrup-change-consumers-food-industry/.

The conclusion of the article is The Corn Refiners Association changing the name of corn syrup to corn sugar is not a good idea. The premises given in the article are that changing the name does nothing but insult the people who know there is no difference between the two. Those people that noticed the problem of corn syrup will continue to have an issue with corn sugar. It also makes for a loss in revenue because people will pay more attention to the work "sugar" more so than the work "syrup" on food labels. More people look for the amount of sugar added to their foods before they look at what ingredient the food contains. It is concluded that the argument is in serious condition. The author makes a reasonable argument. However, there are several fallacies being committed such as: Ad Hominem Abuse, a weak, analogy, and use of a complex question.

"In all my years of marketing, I have never heard of a major being as stupid as the following." (Ad Hominem Abuse)

"It is the equivalent of a questionable individual in hot water who decides to change his name and hope the trouble he created doesn't catch up to him." (Weak Analogy)

"Like this individual, the Corn Refiners require a case of universal amnesia. Maybe the people behind the name change idea are simply cynical. Do they think that consumers won't connect the dots? (Complex Question)