-
nadiaqadeer
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:45 am
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper:
"The Cumquat Café made a mistake in moving to a new location. After one year at the new spot, it is doing about the same volume of business as before, but the owners of the RoboWrench plumbing supply wholesale outlet that took over its old location are apparently doing better: RoboWrench is planning to open a store in a neighboring city."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The above argument concludes that the Cumquat Café has made a mistake in moving to a new location. The author provides evidence for his conclusion that after one year at the new location, the café is doing the same volume of business. Moreover, RoboWrench plumbing supply, the business that took over café's old location, is apparently doing better and is also planning to expand its business. The argument is full of gaps and loop holes. Neither are the evidences convincing nor is the conclusion compelling.
The argument omits many important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. Firstly, the author has mentioned that the cafe is operating at the new location for just one year and gives no information about the number of years it did business at the previous location. Without knowing the number of years of operation at the previous it is not reasonable to compare the volume of business. Because, there are many challenges faced by a business when it starts its operations at a new place such as rapport building and attracting and retaining customers etc. On the other hand, if a business has been operating for some time it has developed a clientele and reputation in that area. Starting a business all over again in a new place is a big challenge and it takes time to establish at the new place. Therefore, the author has made a weak comparison.
Secondly, the author has provided the evidence that the plumbing supply wholesale business is apparently doing better. Here the author assumes that the business which apparently looks fine is also doing fine at figures. Moreover, the author fails to provide any statistical data to proof this claim.
Finally, the author has compared two businesses which do not have much in common. The café business and whole sale plumbing supply business have different target markets; have different business plans and marketing strategies. It is not logical to compare them.
Because the author has made false analogy, the argument is not logical and persuasive. The argument does not address many key issues. If the author considered and included the above mentioned points, the argument would have been more thorough and persuasive.
"The Cumquat Café made a mistake in moving to a new location. After one year at the new spot, it is doing about the same volume of business as before, but the owners of the RoboWrench plumbing supply wholesale outlet that took over its old location are apparently doing better: RoboWrench is planning to open a store in a neighboring city."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The above argument concludes that the Cumquat Café has made a mistake in moving to a new location. The author provides evidence for his conclusion that after one year at the new location, the café is doing the same volume of business. Moreover, RoboWrench plumbing supply, the business that took over café's old location, is apparently doing better and is also planning to expand its business. The argument is full of gaps and loop holes. Neither are the evidences convincing nor is the conclusion compelling.
The argument omits many important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. Firstly, the author has mentioned that the cafe is operating at the new location for just one year and gives no information about the number of years it did business at the previous location. Without knowing the number of years of operation at the previous it is not reasonable to compare the volume of business. Because, there are many challenges faced by a business when it starts its operations at a new place such as rapport building and attracting and retaining customers etc. On the other hand, if a business has been operating for some time it has developed a clientele and reputation in that area. Starting a business all over again in a new place is a big challenge and it takes time to establish at the new place. Therefore, the author has made a weak comparison.
Secondly, the author has provided the evidence that the plumbing supply wholesale business is apparently doing better. Here the author assumes that the business which apparently looks fine is also doing fine at figures. Moreover, the author fails to provide any statistical data to proof this claim.
Finally, the author has compared two businesses which do not have much in common. The café business and whole sale plumbing supply business have different target markets; have different business plans and marketing strategies. It is not logical to compare them.
Because the author has made false analogy, the argument is not logical and persuasive. The argument does not address many key issues. If the author considered and included the above mentioned points, the argument would have been more thorough and persuasive.
