Help me in evaluation and I ll evaluate yours as well. After all, by evaluating other essays
and trying to find the flaws, it is a good practice that helps us write better essays. :proud:
"The market for the luxury-goods industry is on the decline. Recent reports show that a
higher unemployment rate, coupled with consumer fears, has decreased the amount of
money the average household spends on both essential and nonessential items, but
especially on nonessential items. Since luxury goods are, by nature, nonessential, this
market will be the first to decrease in the present economic climate, and luxury
retailers should refocus their attention to lower-priced markets."
The argument that luxury-good industry is on a decline and that luxury retailers
should refocus their attention to lower-priced markets is not logically coherent,
since it ignores certain crucial assumptions.
First, the argument that higher unemployment rate and consumers' fear has decreased
the money spent by the average household, assumes that sample factors are not only
representative but they also have a causal relationship with the market declination.
There is a plethora of factors that should also be considered such as political
stability, tax fluctuation in luxury goods, average wage oscillation etc that could
cause the same effects. Furthermore, the author provides no real data on the percentage
of unemployment rate increment. If the rate is high but the total number of unemployed
people is still considered low by the international standards then it cannot be
considered a valid argument. In addition, the introduction of "fear" is undefined
since there is no justification of what the consumers might fear and can lead to
numerous interpretations.
Second, the argument, which also sounds like a completely another issue, relating with
the definition and the nature of what a luxury-good is, is too abstract to be considered
solid. For western civilization, most daily used goods are not considered as luxury goods.
In contrast, in underdeveloped countries items like a microwave kitchen, smartphone or
even a simple TV are truly considered luxury goods. The author should have set the
reference context of this assumption or give a few examples of where a luxury-good
refers to.
Finally, the argument that correlates luxury-good market declination with the whole
economic climate is a flawed analogy assumption. There is not any report of a
total market percentage that the luxury-good market actually posses. For instance, the
general economic climate could be flourishing while letting luxury-good market in
decline. If the luxury-good market owned a large slice of the total market pie then it
could be possible that there is a strong trend relationship, a case that we
cannot arbitrary assume. This also negates the claim that luxury-good market would
be the first to decrease in the present economic climate since there is no obvious
correlation.
To sum up, the argument is not completely sound. The evidence in support of the
conclusion that luxury-goods industry is in decline and that luxury retailers should
refocus their attention to lower-priced markets does little to prove that conclusion,
since it does not address the assumptions already aforementioned. On top of that, the
argument might have been strengthened by pointing out a country or region that the argument
is based on, by introducing some concrete reference sources relating to an official
market research on the specific industry which proves that unemployment rate and fear
are the primary reasons for luxury-industry declination, that luxury-goods are specific
items that correspond to a named country or region and a scientific report that bolsters
luxury-good industry to be the major economic portion in that country or region.