63. According to this newspaper article, the Cumquat Cafe made a mistake by ) e' |7 Y; Q: ^' A
relocating one year ago. The author supports this claim by pointing out that Cumquat is
, f. v/ N) Y6 U5 [' h9 Jdoing about the same volume of business as before it moved, while RoboWrench ) @9 _' Z" v0 y2 I v1 F, L
plumbing supply outlet, which took over Cumquat's old location, is apparently "doing $ H9 K F" ~" G: j
better" because its owners plan to open a new outlet in a nearby city. This argument ) a) k, C* _6 `+ b0 e1 B; d# Q
suffers from several critical flaws.
/ T0 l4 r9 ?- e- q7 L To begin with, the two businesses are too dissimilar for meaningful comparison.
( q g" H& m9 C3 R! tCumquat's old location may simply have been better suited to hardware, plumbing, and ! Y& M$ N# k4 s6 x
home improvement businesses than to cafes and restaurants. The article's claim that ( V: _2 t( S' f9 g
Cumquat made a mistake in moving fails to take this possibility into account.. a) w2 T* S% i7 Y4 y* e
Secondly, the article's claim that RoboWrench is "doing better" since it took over 8 n3 C* n& h+ Q# F
Cumquat's old location is too vague to be meaningful. The author fails to provide a . x! S; [2 k! t# J H
second term of this comparison. We are not informed whether RoboWrench is doing 8 o9 n. N! M0 ^! A
better than before it moved, better than other plumbing stores, or better than Cumquat.
6 D5 W8 l v2 S) v% h7 eThis uninformative comparison is worthless as evidence from which to judge the
# w' H4 Q; O; c" A; rwisdom of Cumquat's decision to relocate. L, }1 W6 l3 u: d r5 w
Thirdly, the claim that RoboWrench is doing better is unwarranted by the 9 U Y/ j" G7 K( H
evidence. The mere fact that RoboWrench plans to open a new store in a nearby city
: t1 q* \+ G/ D$ m+ C6 ^) qdoes not by itself establish that business is good. It is possible that the purpose of this 4 ^0 X2 Z" M3 \9 F6 J. q
plan is to compensate for lackluster business at the current location. Or perhaps the
2 x$ h+ G( }8 W$ I4 O% z, u* x& ARoboWrench owners are simply exercising poor business judgment.
m& R c' m) c; m Finally, the claim that Cumquat made a mistake in moving may be too hasty, since
3 S9 ~* G- r" ~; Fthe conclusion is based on only one year's business at the new location. Moreover,
' _) t9 s8 e/ j- hgiven the time it ordinarily takes for a business to develop a new customer base in a new
- R$ L j3 c3 R6 dlocation, the fact that Cumquat's volume of business is about the same as before it
& L4 Y5 T; O9 _7 R- L. [$ g# R% dmoved tends to show that the move was a good decision, not a mistake.
7 ~, L/ U3 S: q In conclusion, the claim that Cumquat's move was a mistake is ill-founded, since
% E- i1 C; b& v& n9 L' Wit is based on both poor and incomplete comparisons as welt as on a premature
! p8 o; @# D5 V, qconclusion. To better assess the argument, we need to know what the author is
! r8 J1 ]" U$ c! m( Wcomparing RoboWrench's performance to; we also need more information about the 3 Y$ }; q {6 i; e/ _ i
extent of RoboWrench's success at this location and why its owners are opening a new
- ~- U& F, L! Rstore. |
发表于 2012-8-15 21:50:16
