-
s.martinez.puppo
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 6:25 pm
Prompt:
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."
Answer:
The argument that Avia airline should establish a commuter route between Beaumont and Fletcher as well as offer 1/3 discounts for nonrefundable tickets bought within two days of the flight in order to counter recent losses, relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. The author of this argument states that the number of businesses in Beaumont and Fletcher is growing fast. However, this alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the recommendation mentioned above and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main conclusion. The author fails to acknowledge several key elements regarding other competitor that may be already covering the demand in that route and analysis of other means of transport that could be used to travel between the two cities.
One of the most fundamental flaws with this argument stems from a failure to acknowledge that although the frequency of travels from Beaumont to Fletcher may be increasing, this does not necessarily mean that people would choose to travel by airplane. The author omits any mention of how far apart those cities from each other are. It is entirely possible that they are just 200 km away from each other and people would prefer to travel by car or bus through the highway than to pay an expensive airplane ticket. Furthermore, even if people chose to travel by airplane, this does not mean that customer would choose Avia. For instance, there might be another company which has already established that route, and it is cheaper and has more recognition for the quality of its services. Had the argument included such data and had the data corroborated the argument's conclusion, a stronger case for the recommendation would have been made.
Even if the argument persuasively featured information about other competitors and people's preference regarding transportation, several logical leaps would still be required for this argument to be considered sound. For instance, the author claims that in order to make the route more profitable, Avia should offer discounts on nonrefundable tickets purchased within two days of the flight. Yet, there is no proof provided that people tend to miss their flights so frequently that would compensate the discount. This type of information should be given for the argument to be more convincing.
As the argument now stands, it does not read as either persuasive or cogent. Improvements addressing other competitors and people's choice about transportation for that particular route would certainly make this argument a better and more convincing piece.
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."
Answer:
The argument that Avia airline should establish a commuter route between Beaumont and Fletcher as well as offer 1/3 discounts for nonrefundable tickets bought within two days of the flight in order to counter recent losses, relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. The author of this argument states that the number of businesses in Beaumont and Fletcher is growing fast. However, this alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the recommendation mentioned above and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main conclusion. The author fails to acknowledge several key elements regarding other competitor that may be already covering the demand in that route and analysis of other means of transport that could be used to travel between the two cities.
One of the most fundamental flaws with this argument stems from a failure to acknowledge that although the frequency of travels from Beaumont to Fletcher may be increasing, this does not necessarily mean that people would choose to travel by airplane. The author omits any mention of how far apart those cities from each other are. It is entirely possible that they are just 200 km away from each other and people would prefer to travel by car or bus through the highway than to pay an expensive airplane ticket. Furthermore, even if people chose to travel by airplane, this does not mean that customer would choose Avia. For instance, there might be another company which has already established that route, and it is cheaper and has more recognition for the quality of its services. Had the argument included such data and had the data corroborated the argument's conclusion, a stronger case for the recommendation would have been made.
Even if the argument persuasively featured information about other competitors and people's preference regarding transportation, several logical leaps would still be required for this argument to be considered sound. For instance, the author claims that in order to make the route more profitable, Avia should offer discounts on nonrefundable tickets purchased within two days of the flight. Yet, there is no proof provided that people tend to miss their flights so frequently that would compensate the discount. This type of information should be given for the argument to be more convincing.
As the argument now stands, it does not read as either persuasive or cogent. Improvements addressing other competitors and people's choice about transportation for that particular route would certainly make this argument a better and more convincing piece.
