Adding true clauses (e.g. some people want an iphone to project success) doesn't necessarily make a true argument. The conclusion must also be supported by the clauses.
In this case, an argument which amounts to:
"People need to have an iPhone because some business owners feel they need it to project success, thus Apple has a monopoly on something essential"
is so random it can't be even be called wrong.
Whether some "business owners" feel they need an iPhone to "project success" doesn't mean anything, and is an absolutely moot point as to whether Apple is a monopoly, or even as to whether the iPhone is an essential good, or whatever else you had in mind.
In this case, an argument which amounts to:
"People need to have an iPhone because some business owners feel they need it to project success, thus Apple has a monopoly on something essential"
is so random it can't be even be called wrong.
Whether some "business owners" feel they need an iPhone to "project success" doesn't mean anything, and is an absolutely moot point as to whether Apple is a monopoly, or even as to whether the iPhone is an essential good, or whatever else you had in mind.