The above argument states that corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities and is banking on three assumptions. Firstly ,the unemployment rate during recession was lower than the regional average. Secondly, Helios is the industrial centre in the region providing more manufacturing jobs than the region's share. Thirdly, it is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting more companies for r&d.
I find many flaws in the above mentioned assumptions.
To start with, the argument is comparing the unemployment rate with the business opportunities and, has not explicitly mentioned the unemployment rate in comparison to other locations in the region. It might be true that the unemployment rate would be very high, but less in comparison to other locations.
Furthermore, Helios ,as industrial region, has provided manufacturing jobs,but doesn't conclude that it will provide new business opportunities. There might be a case that the business is not of manufacturing at all and Helios being an industrial region has nothing new to offer.
Moreover, it's claim that it is attracting companies focusing on research and development of innovative technology,and that doesn't show that it is a good location for new business, which might not be focusing on r&d.
To conclude ,I feel that the line of reasoning used to arrive at the above conclusion has a lot of flaws, and can be strengthened by providing a bit more information explicitly.
Can anyone just check my writing assignment . Feedbacks are welcome and please rate it on a scale of 6
Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using
GMAT Club Forum mobile app