-
thegmatexperience
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:29 pm
Hello again,
here is another essay I wrote today. It is topic #140. Hope to get some critique.
Thanks a lot!
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business planning department of Avia Airlines:
"Of all the cities in their region, Beaumont and Fletcher are showing the fastest growth in the number of new businesses. Therefore, Avia should establish a commuter route between them as a means of countering recent losses on its main passenger routes. And to make the commuter route more profitable from the outset, Avia should offer a 1/3 discount on tickets purchased within two days of the flight. Unlike tickets bought earlier, discount tickets will be nonrefundable, and so gain from their sale will be greater."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
As mobility becomes an essential part of our globalised world, Airline routes become more important.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that Avia should establish a new route for passengers in order to balance out the losses on its main passenger routes.
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.
He states that Fletcher and Beaumont have the fastest growth in the number of emerging business in their region. But he doesn't offer us concrete numbers concerning the growth rate of the two named cities nor other cities to compare them with.
Secondly he says, to make the route more profitable, Avia should offer discount tickets. Unfotunetly, the author omits to name specific numbers of the amounts of money needed to make this route profitable or the prices of the tickets offered earlier.
Moreover, he states that discount tickets will be nonrefundable and lead to a greater gain from their sale. But we don't know if people are willing to buy them. If the auther would provide any polls possibly conducted by the airline or a governmental institution in order to find out if their potential customer are willing to buy the discount tickets, this premise would have a substantiated base.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any evidentiary support and render his coinclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
In his opinion the growth rates in both cities lead to a higher number of people travelling from one city to another. While there might be a higher growth rate in those cities, there is no prove that this growth rate makes the people want to travel inbetween the two cities.
Furthermore the author assumes that the number of passengers travelling from Beaumont to Fletcher and vice versa will counter the losses of Avia. The author doesn't know -- or doesn't tell the readers that he knows -- that the gain in sales will cover the losses of the airline.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between the higher growth rates and the increasing desire of people to travel between the cities as well the link between the number of people travelling and the losses and expenses that need to be compensated, he assumes exist.
While the author has included various drawbacks in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
In order to strengthen his argument, the author could name growth rates of the two named cities and some other cities' growth rates to compare them with, a concrete number for the predicted gain of the discount tickets or a conducted poll of Avia showing some number of passengers willing to travel this route if available.
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.
here is another essay I wrote today. It is topic #140. Hope to get some critique.
Thanks a lot!
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business planning department of Avia Airlines:
"Of all the cities in their region, Beaumont and Fletcher are showing the fastest growth in the number of new businesses. Therefore, Avia should establish a commuter route between them as a means of countering recent losses on its main passenger routes. And to make the commuter route more profitable from the outset, Avia should offer a 1/3 discount on tickets purchased within two days of the flight. Unlike tickets bought earlier, discount tickets will be nonrefundable, and so gain from their sale will be greater."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
As mobility becomes an essential part of our globalised world, Airline routes become more important.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that Avia should establish a new route for passengers in order to balance out the losses on its main passenger routes.
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.
He states that Fletcher and Beaumont have the fastest growth in the number of emerging business in their region. But he doesn't offer us concrete numbers concerning the growth rate of the two named cities nor other cities to compare them with.
Secondly he says, to make the route more profitable, Avia should offer discount tickets. Unfotunetly, the author omits to name specific numbers of the amounts of money needed to make this route profitable or the prices of the tickets offered earlier.
Moreover, he states that discount tickets will be nonrefundable and lead to a greater gain from their sale. But we don't know if people are willing to buy them. If the auther would provide any polls possibly conducted by the airline or a governmental institution in order to find out if their potential customer are willing to buy the discount tickets, this premise would have a substantiated base.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any evidentiary support and render his coinclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
In his opinion the growth rates in both cities lead to a higher number of people travelling from one city to another. While there might be a higher growth rate in those cities, there is no prove that this growth rate makes the people want to travel inbetween the two cities.
Furthermore the author assumes that the number of passengers travelling from Beaumont to Fletcher and vice versa will counter the losses of Avia. The author doesn't know -- or doesn't tell the readers that he knows -- that the gain in sales will cover the losses of the airline.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between the higher growth rates and the increasing desire of people to travel between the cities as well the link between the number of people travelling and the losses and expenses that need to be compensated, he assumes exist.
While the author has included various drawbacks in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
In order to strengthen his argument, the author could name growth rates of the two named cities and some other cities' growth rates to compare them with, a concrete number for the predicted gain of the discount tickets or a conducted poll of Avia showing some number of passengers willing to travel this route if available.
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.
