Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it. While I wouldn't discourage anyone from investigating such things themselves, I suppose an easier and less time consuming line of reasoning would be as follows:

There are many well-reported cases of companies phoning up people at their homes at random, offering them what sounds like a good deal but turning out to be anything between much less attractive than it initially sounds to an outright scam. On the other hand, there are very few reported cases of companies phoning up people and giving away expensive stuff for free out of the goodness of their little hearts - and if companies were doing this we'd have to wonder why they would want to, or why we aren't hearing about it more. So, while I have no first hand experience of this, then, assuming that the reported situation aligns closely with actual situation (i.e. barring some sort of reporting conspiracy), I can probably safely hang up the phone with my curious, skeptical nature intact!

In other words, it's true - there's not always time for everyone to investigate everything in everyday life, but it's not necessarily a weakness in reasoning to fall back on well-reported evidence where appropriate. Like all methods, including checking for yourself, this won't be infallible but it's a great time saver for everyday situations like the one described, where a high degree of certainty is not really necessary.

Skepticism’s default position is non-belief. The onus is on cold-callers of such deals to demonstrate their sincerity, even more so since they should all know the general perception of their methods (cold-calling fantastic deals). By sounding exactly the same as scam calls, they fell at the first hurdle. Even if they weren’t scammers, they didn’t do their homework.

It is entirely reasonable to hang up.

Skepticism is immensely handy for everyday situations; and most of us apply it all the time, we just scale the evidentiary requirements according to the claim. Take interpersonal communications, if it's nothing out of the ordinary, anecdotal evidence will do.

There is no need for skepticism as skepticism relates to a state of mind prior to reasoned considerations.

By undertaking a process of logic regardless of whether you believe or disbelieve something is always the optimum method of action.

Once you have reasoned through a logical process you can then decide whether such information is true or false or requiring further information.

Therefore skepticism is merely a poor man's reason. I prefer wariness or caution - it confers a greater sense of humanity and maturity. (although I realise this may require a change to the name of this website.)