Argument and Issue AWA. Please review and feedback?
[#permalink]
15 Dec 2010, 17:43
ARGUMENT:
We should proceed with our plan to open a new Classy Steakhouse restaurant in the busy Downtown Centre mail in the central business district of Hopeville. Although two restaurants in that location have closed in the past year (one a burger joint, the other a Chinese restaurant), their failure does not mean that Downtown Centre is an unsuitable location for our restaurant. After all, The Centre Cade has been in business at that location for twenty-five years. Furthermore, national reports from the restaurant industry show that business executives are eating out more frequently than ever. It is therefore likely that we will be very successful at that location
MY RESPONSE:
The argument claims that the busy Downtown Centre mall in the central business district of Hopeville is an ideal location for a successful Classy Steakhouse restaurant, despite the closure of a burger joint and a China restaurant in the past year at the same location. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument failed to assess the cause behind the exit of the two restaurants that was at the same location and closed in the past year, and readily assumes that the closed restaurants themselves are responsible but not the location. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in anyway. For instance, the location may be inconvenient to local residence and offices. Therefore, greatly reduces the exposure to the downtown customer base. Furthermore, it is plausible that the performance of the closed restaurant was decent but they were deemed unprofitable due to high rents and utilities cost typical of downtown real estates. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the factors that caused the previous occupants to withdraw.
Secondly, the argument drew parallel with The Centre Cade, a restaurant in business for twenty-five years at the same location, assuming the new Classy Steakhouse restaurant will be similarly successful. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between The Centre Cade's success and that of Classy Steakhouse restaurant. For example, the type of cuisine, level of services and average price range of a meal are all important factors to the success of a restaurant. Furthermore, having operated for twenty-five years, The Centre Cade presumably has built up a considerable customer base and loyality. Clearly, the argument does not provide evidences to support the claim that Classy Steakhouse will be as successful as The Centre Cade.
Finally, the argument claims that a recent national reports show that business executives are eating out more frequently than ever without explicitly explaining the expectation of these individuals in their selection of restaurants. For example, service level, location and type of the restaurants picked by these individuals. It is plausible that business executives at the Hopeville business district are prefers take out deli sandwiches than a steak meal during lunch hours. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.