GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文五

会计考友

63.         According to this newspaper article, the Cumquat Cafe made a mistake by
! Q+ ^+ o9 E0 Q. ]relocating one year ago. The author supports this claim by pointing out that Cumquat is
doing about the same volume of business as before it moved, while RoboWrench
2 r% w* q$ d7 rplumbing supply outlet, which took over Cumquat's old location, is apparently "doing
better" because its owners plan to open a new outlet in a nearby city. This argument
suffers from several critical flaws.
      To begin with, the two businesses are too dissimilar for meaningful comparison.
Cumquat's old location may simply have been better suited to hardware, plumbing, and
0 N+ a! B2 J# {home improvement businesses than to cafes and restaurants. The article's claim that
Cumquat made a mistake in moving fails to take this possibility into account.
* Y) e$ w5 E* C9 W! n# X. H      Secondly, the article's claim that RoboWrench is "doing better" since it took over
Cumquat's old location is too vague to be meaningful. The author fails to provide a
, E7 R& q* |* Q  u  n" a  k0 Vsecond term of this comparison. We are not informed whether RoboWrench is doing
better than before it moved, better than other plumbing stores, or better than Cumquat.
This uninformative comparison is worthless as evidence from which to judge the
wisdom of Cumquat's decision to relocate.
      Thirdly, the claim that RoboWrench is doing better is unwarranted by the
evidence. The mere fact that RoboWrench plans to open a new store in a nearby city
5 D2 T* Y! S+ i; tdoes not by itself establish that business is good. It is possible that the purpose of this
plan is to compensate for lackluster business at the current location. Or perhaps the
& c; j9 Z: A& {1 u. y3 {RoboWrench owners are simply exercising poor business judgment.
      Finally, the claim that Cumquat made a mistake in moving may be too hasty, since
# v( R, d1 D8 ^& N  h& hthe conclusion is based on only one year's business at the new location. Moreover,
given the time it ordinarily takes for a business to develop a new customer base in a new
) U" H% T: E/ Z8 A4 j5 Flocation, the fact that Cumquat's volume of business is about the same as before it
0 K1 X) [, _( T) smoved tends to show that the move was a good decision, not a mistake.
; Q; d$ m- S0 e5 P6 p9 `      In conclusion, the claim that Cumquat's move was a mistake is ill-founded, since
it is based on both poor and incomplete comparisons as welt as on a premature
7 [) P" e' y" o2 oconclusion. To better assess the argument, we need to know what the author is
comparing RoboWrench's performance to; we also need more information about the
2 ~' u+ u" l# _* R( p) Y  J4 nextent of RoboWrench's success at this location and why its owners are opening a new
store.