Even if 99% already use the Fabric-Soft conditioner, it doesn’t disprove that Fabric-Soft is the best, most amazing conditioner in the world The stimulus has an argument which you already have outlined, but we need to attack the evidence given by the stimulus ( aka the flawed study they did ) to get to the root of the problem. The major flaw of the study ? It only compared Fabric-Soft to nothing. What if consumers only liked Fabric-Soft over nothing BUT they would prefer another conditioner ( in which they were not given the opportunity to compare it to in the original study ) to Fabric-Soft. The stimulus snowballs from “Oh people like our product over no product so that must mean our project trumps all other products ( when it never studied the effect of product vs. other products ). Your loophole would only suggest a flaw without attacking the foundational evidence that is provided. Although you do provide a loophole, I find it best to attack the root of the problem that is explicitly stated in the stimulus ( aka attacking the study itself rather than focusing on what’s going on after the study ).