-
thegmatexperience
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:29 pm
Hello,
another essay about topic #141. Same template. As always, I am very grateful for any advice or critique.
The following appeared in a memorandum from the vice president of Gigantis, a development company that builds and leases retail store facilities:
"Nationwide over the past five years, sales have increased significantly at outlet stores that deal exclusively in reduced-price merchandise. Therefore, we should publicize the new mall that we are building at Pleasantville as a central location for outlet shopping and rent store space only to outlet companies. By taking advantage of the success of outlet stores, this plan should help ensure full occupancy of the mall and enable us to recover quickly the costs of building the mall."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that the new mall that is being built at Pleasentville used as a central location for outlet shopping and rented as a store space only to outlet companies should help to be fully occupied and recover quickly the costs of building it.
Though his claim 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, his argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
The author states that there has been a nationwide significant increase of outlet store sales that deal exclusively in reduced-price merchandise over the past five years. But the auhor doesn't name specific numbers of the increase. Furthermore he only speaks of nationwide increase. That implies an average. Because of that, there can be differneces in certain regions. For example could the increase in Pleasentville be significantly low in comparison to the average or to other regions leading to fatal miscalculation.
The author also fails to oppose this increase to the developement of stores that don't deal in reduced-price merchandise.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. First of all, he assumes that the nationwide increase in outlet sales over the past five years isn't going to stop in the future. We cannot be sure of that. A sudden rise of wages could lead to a decrease of outlet store sales.
Moreover another assumption is that the companies running outlet stores are willing to move locations to Pleasentville. The author fails to expand upon the habitants of Pleasentville and doesn't explain what there shopping preferences are. If market analysis in this region would show that people don't have any interest in reduced products the board responsible for the planning of the mall will have problems establishing a mall only with outlet stores.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between a past nationwide increase of outlet store sales and the willingness of outlet stores companies to move their location to Pleasentville 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.
By presenting data based by statistical forecasting with the help of time series, specific numbers of the increase of outlet store sales and an explication of the local distribution of the sales, the author could have strengthened his argument.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with 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.
another essay about topic #141. Same template. As always, I am very grateful for any advice or critique.
The following appeared in a memorandum from the vice president of Gigantis, a development company that builds and leases retail store facilities:
"Nationwide over the past five years, sales have increased significantly at outlet stores that deal exclusively in reduced-price merchandise. Therefore, we should publicize the new mall that we are building at Pleasantville as a central location for outlet shopping and rent store space only to outlet companies. By taking advantage of the success of outlet stores, this plan should help ensure full occupancy of the mall and enable us to recover quickly the costs of building the mall."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that the new mall that is being built at Pleasentville used as a central location for outlet shopping and rented as a store space only to outlet companies should help to be fully occupied and recover quickly the costs of building it.
Though his claim 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, his argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
The author states that there has been a nationwide significant increase of outlet store sales that deal exclusively in reduced-price merchandise over the past five years. But the auhor doesn't name specific numbers of the increase. Furthermore he only speaks of nationwide increase. That implies an average. Because of that, there can be differneces in certain regions. For example could the increase in Pleasentville be significantly low in comparison to the average or to other regions leading to fatal miscalculation.
The author also fails to oppose this increase to the developement of stores that don't deal in reduced-price merchandise.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. First of all, he assumes that the nationwide increase in outlet sales over the past five years isn't going to stop in the future. We cannot be sure of that. A sudden rise of wages could lead to a decrease of outlet store sales.
Moreover another assumption is that the companies running outlet stores are willing to move locations to Pleasentville. The author fails to expand upon the habitants of Pleasentville and doesn't explain what there shopping preferences are. If market analysis in this region would show that people don't have any interest in reduced products the board responsible for the planning of the mall will have problems establishing a mall only with outlet stores.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between a past nationwide increase of outlet store sales and the willingness of outlet stores companies to move their location to Pleasentville 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.
By presenting data based by statistical forecasting with the help of time series, specific numbers of the increase of outlet store sales and an explication of the local distribution of the sales, the author could have strengthened his argument.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with 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.
