Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
GMATAWA website 6 (Now I am sure this site is useless) Findscore 5
The following appeared in a letter from a part-owner of a small retail clothing chain to her business partner: “Commercial real estate prices have been rising steadily in the Sandida Heights neighborhood for several years, while the prices in the adjacent neighborhood of Palm Grove have remained the same. It seems obvious, then, that a retail space in Sandida Heights must now be much more expensive than a similar space in Palm Grove, which was not the case several years ago. So, it appears that retail spaces in Sandida Heights are now overpriced relative to those in Palm Grove. Therefore, it would be in our financial interest to purchase a retail space in Palm Grove rather than in Sandida Heights.”
The author claims that it will be financially logical to buy a retail space in Palm Grove because the commercial real estate prices have been rising in the Sandida Heights neighborhood for several years, while those in Palm Grove have remained same. The author suggests that a retail space in Sandida Heights must now be much more expensive than a similar space in Palm Grove. This argument is logically inconsistent and has no clear evidence. The author should address the issues raised in the discussion below to make the argument logically consistent and hence, acceptable.
First of all, author is assuming that because the prices have been rising in Sandida Heights, the real estate there will be more expensive than that in Palm Groove. The author ignores the fact that the base price in Sandida Heights, when the prices started rising, could have been much lower than the prices in Palm Grove. If the price were very low earlier in Sanda Heights, there could be a possibility that similar sized retail space in Palm Grove is still costlier than that in Sandida Heights. In order to remove the element of confusion from this assumption, the author should provide the absolute price or base price and arrive at a decision on where the real estate is costly.
The author also suggests that retails spaces are overpriced in Sandida Heights relative to those in Palm Frove. This assumption is a stretch and ignores key logical points. As discussed earlier, prices in Palm Grove could be very high as compared to that in Sandida Heights. This could lead to sevral different possibilities. It could be possible that prices in Sandida Heights were low and are now getting corrected to market value. Another possibility could be that, retail space in Palm Grove are still overpriced while the increase in price in Sandida Heigths has still not made the prices too high. The author should come up with more historical as well market data to support this claim because without that this assumption is logically inconclusive.
Finally, the author is suggesting that buying in Palm Grove will be in financial interest. This assumption is also critically flawed and cannot be sunbstantiated. Infact, there must be market factors behind price rise in Sandida Heigths. One possibility could be that people with more buying power are spending at the retail stores in that area. Decision to buy a retail store cannot be based upon the real estate; one should also take into account potential buyers and their spending habits. Hence, to arrive on a decision on wether to buy the space in Sandida Heigths, the author should also get data on demographics buying in that area, their spending habits and whether or not they will choose their product.
As discussed above, the argument is weak and cannot be substantiated based on the facts or assumptions mentioned by author. In conclusion, the author should provide addition background information and survey based data to support his claim and make the argument logically consistent.
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a River City newspaper: “The Clio Development Group should not be permitted to build a multilevel parking garage on Dock Street since most of the buildings on the block would have to be demolished. Because these buildings were erected decades ago, they have historic significance and must therefore be preserved as economic assets in the effort to revitalize a restored riverfront area. Recall how Lakesburg has benefited from business increases in its historic downtown center. Moreover, there is plenty of vacant land for a parking lot elsewhere in River City.”
The argument claims that building a multilevel parking garage will result in demolishing of building with historical significance. The argument propses to preserve these building to rivaltize a a restired riverfront area. The assumptions are based on the benefits from business increases in Lakesburg's historic downtown cente as well as the availability of vacant land in the city. The argument, in its current form, is severly flawed and logically inconclusive. The author needs to address the issues dicussed below to make this argument logically strong.
First of all, author assumes that all the buildings built decades ago have historical significance. The assumption is a stretch and the author should provide views of historians to support this claim. Moreover, the buildings could be in such a condition that there could be no other option than demolishing them.
Second, the author suggests that there is plenty of vacant land in River City that can be used for building parking lot. According to the initial plan, parking lot is to be constructed on Dock Street. Possible reason for this could too many businesses already exist in that area of the city. He also ignores the fact that if the permission for multi level parking garage is given, it would be given because of the demand of a parking lot in that area, which mostly will be due to existing businesses and economic activity in Dock Street. By providing an option, which does not specify if the vacant space proposed is in the same area, the author do provide a valid alternative to the problem in hand. The author has vaguely suggested an alternative without considering the problem of less parking space on Dock Street area. This suggestion should be supported with required
Finally, author simply assumes something that worked for Lakesburg will also work for River City. The author fails to give background information for this claims. It could be also possible that the city a;ready has too many historical buildings or a historic downtownn ceter. If author can provide more information, it will easier to evaluate
In conclusion, the argument is very weak and needs to provide supporting proofs to make it logically consistent. The author should provide the background information like current business activity in Dock Street, status of the buildings and alternate vacant space available for parking space to better understand the present situation as well as accepting the argument as logically consistent.