Hello,
this is my essay about topic #135. Every critique is appreciated!
Thanks!
The following appeared in a memorandum written by the managing director of the Exeunt Theater Company:
"Now that we have moved to a larger theater, we can expect to increase our revenues from ticket sales. To further increase profits, we should start producing the plays that have been most successful when they were performed in our nation's largest cities. In addition, we should hire the Adlib Theater Company's director of fund-raising, since corporate contributions to Adlib have increased significantly over the three years that she has worked for Adlib."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that because Exeunt Theater Company has moved to a larger theater an increase of the ticket sales' revenues can be expected.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions. Based solely on the evidence the author offers, his argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
The author first says that producing a play that was succesful in the nation's largest cities leads to a higher profit. The author fails to provide some specific numbers of the Exeunt's expected increase or what the early success consisted of.
Then he states that hiring the Adlib Theater Company's director of fund raising is recommended because the corporate contributions to Adlib have increased a lot over the three years that the director worked for Adlib. The author omits to state some numbers of the contributions or the companies involved in the fund-raising.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
He starts out from the assumption that the plays which have been performed in the nation's largest cities will have the same success in another city. What if the audition of the new city just has a different taste as the audition in the nation's largest cities? Then there wouldn't be an increase of profits for the Exeunt Theater Company, of course.
Moreover he assumes that the fund-raising of another director from the Adlib Theater Company will bring more money for the Exeunt Company. While it may be true that Adlib's director of fund-raising was succesful at gathering money from corporations that doesn't automatically lead to higher fund-raising contributions for Exeunt. The companies in Exeunt's region just couldn't be interested in funding theater plays.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explications of the links between the success in the nation's largest theaters and the higher profits in Exeunt's new theater, as well as the links between the hiring of a director of fund-raising and corporate contributions for Exeunt he assumes exist.
While the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
If he would have named specific figures of the Exeunt's expected increase after producing sucessful plays, what their early success consisted of or numbers of the fund-raising contributions or the companies involved in the fund-raising he could strengthen his argument.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with the research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
this is my essay about topic #135. Every critique is appreciated!
Thanks!
The following appeared in a memorandum written by the managing director of the Exeunt Theater Company:
"Now that we have moved to a larger theater, we can expect to increase our revenues from ticket sales. To further increase profits, we should start producing the plays that have been most successful when they were performed in our nation's largest cities. In addition, we should hire the Adlib Theater Company's director of fund-raising, since corporate contributions to Adlib have increased significantly over the three years that she has worked for Adlib."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that because Exeunt Theater Company has moved to a larger theater an increase of the ticket sales' revenues can be expected.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions. Based solely on the evidence the author offers, his argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
The author first says that producing a play that was succesful in the nation's largest cities leads to a higher profit. The author fails to provide some specific numbers of the Exeunt's expected increase or what the early success consisted of.
Then he states that hiring the Adlib Theater Company's director of fund raising is recommended because the corporate contributions to Adlib have increased a lot over the three years that the director worked for Adlib. The author omits to state some numbers of the contributions or the companies involved in the fund-raising.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
He starts out from the assumption that the plays which have been performed in the nation's largest cities will have the same success in another city. What if the audition of the new city just has a different taste as the audition in the nation's largest cities? Then there wouldn't be an increase of profits for the Exeunt Theater Company, of course.
Moreover he assumes that the fund-raising of another director from the Adlib Theater Company will bring more money for the Exeunt Company. While it may be true that Adlib's director of fund-raising was succesful at gathering money from corporations that doesn't automatically lead to higher fund-raising contributions for Exeunt. The companies in Exeunt's region just couldn't be interested in funding theater plays.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explications of the links between the success in the nation's largest theaters and the higher profits in Exeunt's new theater, as well as the links between the hiring of a director of fund-raising and corporate contributions for Exeunt he assumes exist.
While the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
If he would have named specific figures of the Exeunt's expected increase after producing sucessful plays, what their early success consisted of or numbers of the fund-raising contributions or the companies involved in the fund-raising he could strengthen his argument.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with the research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
