The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.
"The owners of the Cumquat Cafe evidently made a good business decision in moving to a new location, as can be seen from the fact that the Cafe will soon celebrate its second anniversary there. Moreover, it appears that businesses are not likely to succeed at the old location: since the Cafe's move, three different businesses? A tanning salon, an antique emporium, and a pet -grooming shop have occupied its former spot."
Discuss how logically etc.
The aforementioned argument that the movement to another location was a good business decision appears very convincing at first glance but upon further examination of the argument and its structure, a number of issues emerge which must be addressed to substantiate the argument. Major drawbacks of the arguments are its inability to support its hidden assumptions and lack of information to prove its claims. For example, the argument rests upon the availability of resources, willingness of its staff etc. Moreover the stance given to justify the relocation does not constitute a logical reason and it certainly does not prove the main argument.
First and the most conspicuous assumption is that the owners of the café believe that relocation was the only cause of café’s success. There can be many underlying factors which helped café grow after it relocated. For example, a newly constructed office in the nearby area could have provided the much needed clientele to help shoot its revenue cross the bare subsistence level. Or a new school was constructed in the nearby location which provided a part time staff much needed to reduce its operating cost. Hence, the statement that relocation was a good business decision provides a feeble rationale for the preference of new location over its former location..
Second, the argument assumes that celebrating second anniversary means that café is running well. In my view, the success and second anniversary celebration stand as wide asunder as the Polar Regions. Café could be running at the break even level, or café owners are finding it difficult to close it because of some legal issues, or they are not able to find another better location. Lacking support for this very assumption argument manipulates us to make rosy predictions about café’s success.
Finally, the argument assumes that café’s previous location was not good enough for its business. In a weak attempt to buttress its claim, the argument cites the facts that former location was later occupied by other businesses such as pet grooming shop, a tanning salon and an antique emporium. These details in a way actually refute the basic aim of the same.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, the most important of which have been discussed above, it is not sound or persuasive. If the argument had included the points discussed above, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)