Argument Essay:
The following is a recommendation from the manager of Family Friendly Restaurant:
" Family Friendly Restaurant needs to improve its facility to remain competitive in our city ' s restaurant market. Mega-Family Restaurant, recently opened in a suburb of our city, offers a video arcade, fine wood furniture, and seven big-screen televisions. Due to a recession in our town, people report having less discretionary income for eating out. Therefore, if we are to hold our share of a shrinking restaurant market, we need to offer at least all of the features of Mega-Family Restaurant. "
The argument that by replicating at least all the features of Mega-Restaurant, Family Friendly Restaurant can hold its share of restaurant market is flawed on two significant ways. The argument not only falsely compares a city based restaurant with a suburb restaurant, but also assumes that the facility of video arcade, fine wood furniture and big-screens will help the restaurant hold its market share.
Firstly, the argument falsely compares two restaurents having different kind of footfalls. Family Friendly Restaurent is a city based restaurent and perhaps attracts more casual visitors. Its possible that it is located near some big commercial activities place such as offices or shopping places etc. Mega-Family Restaurant is located in suburb which is no-where near city. People need to especially plan to go to suburb and dine in restaurants there. Whereas, city based restaurants may attract a bigger footfall of people from nearby offices.
Secondly, the argument undermines the need of being innovative at the time recession. When people have less discretionary income for eatiing out, restaurants need to be more innovative to maintain their customers. One such measure could be coming up with some special recession menu offering low-priced food. Other could be to reduce the price of its items, serve on low margin, and try to keep its customers coming to restaurants. Clearly, people will avoid to go to suburbs when they have less discretionary income for eating out at the time of recession.
The argument could be fixed if few measure were taken to know where did Family Friendly Restaurant stand in comparison to other nearby restaurants. Moreover, being innovative at the time of recession could help Family Friendly Restaurant to maintain its market share instead of just copying some suburban restaurant's facilities.
In conclusion, arguments needs to address if Family Friendly Restaurant is doing well and is equally competitive as other city based restaurants. It also needs to address that being innovative at time of recession could help more than just copying facilities. At the worst, if the argument were implemented in its current form Family Friendly Restaurant could end-up spending huge money in copying facilities and would see a decrease in its market share.
The following is a recommendation from the manager of Family Friendly Restaurant:
" Family Friendly Restaurant needs to improve its facility to remain competitive in our city ' s restaurant market. Mega-Family Restaurant, recently opened in a suburb of our city, offers a video arcade, fine wood furniture, and seven big-screen televisions. Due to a recession in our town, people report having less discretionary income for eating out. Therefore, if we are to hold our share of a shrinking restaurant market, we need to offer at least all of the features of Mega-Family Restaurant. "
The argument that by replicating at least all the features of Mega-Restaurant, Family Friendly Restaurant can hold its share of restaurant market is flawed on two significant ways. The argument not only falsely compares a city based restaurant with a suburb restaurant, but also assumes that the facility of video arcade, fine wood furniture and big-screens will help the restaurant hold its market share.
Firstly, the argument falsely compares two restaurents having different kind of footfalls. Family Friendly Restaurent is a city based restaurent and perhaps attracts more casual visitors. Its possible that it is located near some big commercial activities place such as offices or shopping places etc. Mega-Family Restaurant is located in suburb which is no-where near city. People need to especially plan to go to suburb and dine in restaurants there. Whereas, city based restaurants may attract a bigger footfall of people from nearby offices.
Secondly, the argument undermines the need of being innovative at the time recession. When people have less discretionary income for eatiing out, restaurants need to be more innovative to maintain their customers. One such measure could be coming up with some special recession menu offering low-priced food. Other could be to reduce the price of its items, serve on low margin, and try to keep its customers coming to restaurants. Clearly, people will avoid to go to suburbs when they have less discretionary income for eating out at the time of recession.
The argument could be fixed if few measure were taken to know where did Family Friendly Restaurant stand in comparison to other nearby restaurants. Moreover, being innovative at the time of recession could help Family Friendly Restaurant to maintain its market share instead of just copying some suburban restaurant's facilities.
In conclusion, arguments needs to address if Family Friendly Restaurant is doing well and is equally competitive as other city based restaurants. It also needs to address that being innovative at time of recession could help more than just copying facilities. At the worst, if the argument were implemented in its current form Family Friendly Restaurant could end-up spending huge money in copying facilities and would see a decrease in its market share.
