Hi
Sajjad1994, can you please rate my essay? Thanks!
The argument claims that the development company, Gigantis, would ensure full occupancy of the mall at Pleasantville and recover the costs of building the mall by publicizing the new mall as a central location for outlet shopping and rent store space only to outlet companies. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that increased sales at outlet stores implies increased profits. This statement is a stretch. For instance, The evidence mentioned clearly indicates that sales have increased at outlet stores that deal exclusively in reduced-price merchandise. Clearly, these outlet stores may not be making great profits by selling at a discounted price. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly mentioned that these reduced-price outlets make significant profits enough to cover costs of the mall.
Second, the argument claims that renting to outlet companies should ensure full mall occupancy and recovery of building costs. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between outlet companies selling discounted merchandise and profits earned by these outlets. To illustrate, there might be outlet companies rented at the mall which might, though profitable, have low business volume and profits. While, a full occupancy mall might indicate thriving business, it need not necessarily mean corresponding profits. If the argument had provided evidence that a fully occupant mall with outlet stores would help recover building costs, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, has the author considered renting space to non-outlet companies that have thriving business to generate revenue and recover costs? Also, is the location of the mall at Pleasantville suitable for increasing sales? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with an impression that the claim is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore, unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if it had clearly mentioned all the relevant facts, such as correlation between discounted outlet stores and profitability. In order to assess the merits of the claim that the new mall would ensure full occupancy and recover building costs, it is essential to have full knowledge of above mentioned contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
close
21 Nov 2017, 05:31
