GMAT Essays (AWA)

The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper:
"The owners of the Cumquat Café evidently made a good business decision in moving to a new location, as can be
seen from the fact that the Café will soon celebrate its second anniversary there. Moreover, it appears that businesses are not likely to succeed at the old location: since the Café's move, three different businesses-a tanning salon, an antique emporium, and a pet-grooming shop-have occupied its former spot."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

Location, location, location, as they say is one of the most important aspects when it comes to setting up a business and this should not be taken lightly. It can either make or break the business. Depending in what industry sector the business operates, the business may favor different reasons why they move to that location.

In the preceding statement, the author claims that the Cumquat Café has made a good business decision by changing locations as other businesses who have occupied the place have not been doing well. The author stated that 3 businesses have occupied the facility within the last 2 years therefore claiming that businesses are not likely to succeed at that particular location. Though the author may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept this argument to be valid.

The primary issue with the authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantial premises. He indicates that the Cumquat Café will be celebrating their second anniversary at their newer location which means that they have been successful and would have never achieved that at their old location. Based on this premise alternate assumptions can be made such as that this may be a startup location and render the authors assumptions questionable.
Secondly the author indicated that 3 other businesses have since moved into the Cafes old location and hence the turnover the authors basing the argument that the location was not suitable for the business to be profitable assuming that they may have gone out of business. However these premises are all poorly presented as the newspaper article has followed the cumquat café but has not followed up with the other businesses. They may be doing as well if not better as the Cumquat Café at a different location. The reasoning is flawed because of lack of evidentiary support from the other businesses side that had occupied the space showing that the author is making incorrect assumptions that remain unproven. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.

Since the article has appeared in a local newspaper, businesses may no longer be inclined of using this space or motivate its current occupier to move to a different location. It can be assumed that this location however may have been a good start up location which businesses may have received grants or did so well that the location may have become too small to expand operations; otherwise 3 businesses may have not occupied the space in such a small amount of time. If the Cumquat Café may not have done well no one would have occupied the space.

While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumption, which is not to say that the argument is without base .In order for the author to strengthen its argument, more evidence would have been necessary which probably would have strengthened or changed the author's conclusion. Follow up with the previous business owners will be a good starting point as well as consumers around that area to make the argument more credible to the readers of this article. Therefore with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantial assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. Without some evidentiary support, this argument is very doubtful and poorly reasoned and will likely convince few people