Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
05 Mar 2016, 10:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper:
“The Cumquat Café made a mistake in moving to a new location. After one year at the new spot, it is doing about the same volume of business as before, but the owners of the RoboWrench plumbing supply wholesale outlet that took over its old location are apparently doing better: RoboWrench is planning to open a store in a neighboring city.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The presented argument concludes that Cumquat Café made a mistake in moving to a new location based on a single assumption/observation – the Café was still handling the same volume as before but the new owners of its old location, RoboWrench, are doing better. While the argument may well have merit, it omits some important concerns and makes certain unsupported assumptions, and therefore, based only on the evidence provided by the author, we cannot accept the argument as valid.
First, the author assumes that RoboWrench has benefitted by opening its outlet at the old location of Café Cumquat. Without providing any financial details, the author makes a rather weak attempt to support this claim by stating that RoboWrench is planning to open an outlet in a new city. It is, however, possible that RoboWrench might be making a profit through its other outlets, but a loss through the outlet in question. Besides, RoboWrench might be opening a new store to increase in market share, inspite of weak financial condition. Without any financial evidence to substantiate this claim, all of this is mere speculation.
Second, plumbing business is extremely different from Café business and these businesses involve very different market dynamics. For example, consider a zone where a lot of residential buildings are coming up and where currently the population is very low; such a locality may have a huge demand for plumbing supply but low demand for beverages.
Third, the argument does not talk about the reason behind the decision of the management of Cumquat Café to move out of the old location. It is possible that the management’s decision to move out of the old location was not made with a view to increase the profits but something rather in very different direction. What if the region had very high crime rate and the management was worried about the safety of its employees? Answers to such questions is essential to be able to evaluate the argument.
In sum, the author’s argument is deeply flawed and he needs to restructure his argument, provide financial evidence, explicate his assumption and address all the concerns to be able to convince his readers.
“The Cumquat Café made a mistake in moving to a new location. After one year at the new spot, it is doing about the same volume of business as before, but the owners of the RoboWrench plumbing supply wholesale outlet that took over its old location are apparently doing better: RoboWrench is planning to open a store in a neighboring city.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The presented argument concludes that Cumquat Café made a mistake in moving to a new location based on a single assumption/observation – the Café was still handling the same volume as before but the new owners of its old location, RoboWrench, are doing better. While the argument may well have merit, it omits some important concerns and makes certain unsupported assumptions, and therefore, based only on the evidence provided by the author, we cannot accept the argument as valid.
First, the author assumes that RoboWrench has benefitted by opening its outlet at the old location of Café Cumquat. Without providing any financial details, the author makes a rather weak attempt to support this claim by stating that RoboWrench is planning to open an outlet in a new city. It is, however, possible that RoboWrench might be making a profit through its other outlets, but a loss through the outlet in question. Besides, RoboWrench might be opening a new store to increase in market share, inspite of weak financial condition. Without any financial evidence to substantiate this claim, all of this is mere speculation.
Second, plumbing business is extremely different from Café business and these businesses involve very different market dynamics. For example, consider a zone where a lot of residential buildings are coming up and where currently the population is very low; such a locality may have a huge demand for plumbing supply but low demand for beverages.
Third, the argument does not talk about the reason behind the decision of the management of Cumquat Café to move out of the old location. It is possible that the management’s decision to move out of the old location was not made with a view to increase the profits but something rather in very different direction. What if the region had very high crime rate and the management was worried about the safety of its employees? Answers to such questions is essential to be able to evaluate the argument.
In sum, the author’s argument is deeply flawed and he needs to restructure his argument, provide financial evidence, explicate his assumption and address all the concerns to be able to convince his readers.
Moderators:
189 posts
