Manager
Joined: 12 Nov 2014
Posts: 126
Given Kudos: 15
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Pls give feedback to my writing- My exam is comming soon
[#permalink]
04 Apr 2015, 19:57
The following appeared as part of the business plan of the Capital Idea investment firm:
"Across town in the Park Hill district, the Thespian Theater, Pizzazz Pizza, and the Niblick Golf Club have all had business increases over the past two years. Capital Idea should therefore invest in the Roxy Playhouse, the Slice-o'-Pizza, and the Divot Golf Club, three new businesses in the Irongate district. As a condition, we should require them to participate in a special program: Any customer who patronizes two of the businesses will receive a substantial discount at the third. By motivating customers to patronize all three, we will thus contribute to the profitability of each and maximize our return."
Premise 1 : The Thespian Theater, Pizzazz Pizza, and the Niblick Golf Club in the Park Hill district have all had business increases over the past two year.
Premise 2: Capital Idea should invest in three new businesses, the Roxy Playhouse, the Slice-o’- Pizza, and the Divot Golf Club in the Ironagte district.
Premise 3 : Capital Idea give customers a special program : Any customer who patronizes two of the businesses will receive a substantial discount at the third therefore the program will motivate customers to patronize all there.
Conclusion : All three business get profit and hence it maximize the Capital Idea’s return.
Unstated premises : Three new businesses are compatible with three businesses in Park Hill district.
The customers of two different districts have the same taste.
Marjory of customers are interested in two activities of three businesses rather three ones.
In this argument, the author concludes that the Capital Idea Investment firm will maximize its return of its investment at all three new businesses, the Roxy Playhouse, The Slice- o’- Pizza and the Divot Golf Club in the Irongate district. To support this conclusion, the author cites that the Thespian Theater, Pizzazz Pizza, and the Niblick Golf Club in the Park Hill district have all had business increases over the past two years and that the special campaign that any customer who patronizes two of the businesses will receive a substantial discount at the third will motivate customers to patronize all three then therefore all three new businesses make profit. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that by motivating customers to patronize all three via the special program that any customer who patronizes two of the businesses will receive a substantial discount at the third, three business will gain profitability. This statement is stretch, the author fails to give more information to support how such the special program could have a great impact on the profit of all three businesses. It could be true that the people in the Irongate district are interested in all watching Theater, eating Pizza and playing Golf rather than doing one or two activities. The program which gives clients a chance to join three activities with significant discount at the third activity ,therefore creates a negative rather than positive impact . The argument would have much more clear if it explicitly stated how such special program could help the firm to meet its target.
Second, the argument readily assumes that the firm will get profit by investing into all three new businesses in the Irognate district because across town in the Park Hill district, the Thespian Theater, Pizzazz Pizza, and the Niblick Golf Club have all had business increases over the past two years. This is again a very weak and unconvincing claim as the author does not demonstrate the correlation between three businesses in Park Hill district and three new ones in the Irognate district. Whether three new businesses in the Irognate district are compatible to three ones in Park Hill district. Whether residents in two districts have the same taste. It might be that residents in Park Hill district really enjoy theater, eating Pizza and playing golf then businesses in this district blooms but this case might not be true for the Irognate district. Without convincing evidence to these questions, one is left with the impression that such claim is a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed for above –mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing . It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all relevant facts. In order to access the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and opens to debate.
533 words.