GMAT優秀作文優選

時間：2021-01-30 16:49:22 gmat考試我要投稿

GMAT優秀作文優選

　　According to this newspaper article, the Cumquat Cafe made a mistake by 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 plumbing supply outlet, which took over Cumquats 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.

GMAT優秀作文優選

　　To begin with, the two businesses are too dissimilar for meaningful comparison. Cumquats old location may simply have been better suited to hardware, plumbing, and home improvement businesses than to cafes and restaurants. The articles claim that Cumquat made a mistake in moving fails to take this possibility into account.

　　Secondly, the articles claim that RoboWrench is doing better since it took over Cumquats old location is too vague to be meaningful. The author fails to provide a second 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 Cumquats 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 does 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 RoboWrench owners are simply exercising poor business judgment.

【GMAT優秀作文優選】相關文章：

GMAT優秀作文07-20