95. The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.
“Hippocrene Plumbing Supply recently opened a wholesale outlet in the location once occupied by the Cumquat Cafe. Hippocrene has apparently been quite successful there because it is planning to open a large outlet in a nearby city. But the Cumquat Cafe, one year after moving to its new location, has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year’s. Clearly, the former site is a better business location, and the Cumquat Cafe has made a mistake in moving to its new address.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Hippocrene鉛管供應(yīng)商在一度為Cumquat咖啡店的地方開(kāi)了一家直銷店。Hippocrene現(xiàn)在相當(dāng)?shù)某晒?，因?yàn)樗麄冋?jì)劃在臨近城市開(kāi)一家大的直銷店。但是Cumquat咖啡店在搬到新地址一年后發(fā)現(xiàn)它的業(yè)務(wù)量比前一年有所下降。很明顯，它的前一個(gè)地址是一個(gè)更好的商務(wù)地址，Cumquat咖啡店作出搬遷決定是錯(cuò)誤的。
1， gratuitous assumption: It is absurd to say the Hippocrene has been quite successful in the original location of Cumquat Café Restaurant only because the former is planning to open a large outlet in a nearby city.
2， false analogy
3， causal oversimplification: Other factors other than the location that may contribute to the success of the H and the failure of the C should be considered and ruled out.
(原稿空缺)Business is obviously unsuitable to the location. On the other hand, a bank in the same location might be extremely successful simply because of its suitability to the location.
In the third place, the author’s claim that Hippocrene has been successful at Cumquat’s previous location is unwarranted. The fact that Hippocrene intends to open a new outlet is insufficient to establish this claim. It is possible that the plan to open a new outlet was prompted by a lack of business at the Cumquat location.
Finally, the author unfairly assumes that one year’s time at the new location is adequate to conclude whether Cumquat made a mistake in moving to that location. Its is entirely possible that given more time, perhaps another year or so, Cumquat will become profitable at the location. Common sense informs me that this is a distinct possibility, since it often takes more than one year for a restaurant to establish a customer base at a given location.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to evaluate other possible causes of the performance of the businesses and eliminate all except location as the cause in each case. Additionally, it would be necessary to show that location rather than suitability to a location was the cause of the success of Hippocrene and the failure of Cumquat.
“Hippocrene Plumbing Supply recently opened a wholesale outlet in the location once occupied by the Cumquat Cafe. Hippocrene has apparently been quite successful there because it is planning to open a large outlet in a nearby city. But the Cumquat Cafe, one year after moving to its new location, has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year’s. Clearly, the former site is a better business location, and the Cumquat Cafe has made a mistake in moving to its new address.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Hippocrene鉛管供應(yīng)商在一度為Cumquat咖啡店的地方開(kāi)了一家直銷店。Hippocrene現(xiàn)在相當(dāng)?shù)某晒?，因?yàn)樗麄冋?jì)劃在臨近城市開(kāi)一家大的直銷店。但是Cumquat咖啡店在搬到新地址一年后發(fā)現(xiàn)它的業(yè)務(wù)量比前一年有所下降。很明顯，它的前一個(gè)地址是一個(gè)更好的商務(wù)地址，Cumquat咖啡店作出搬遷決定是錯(cuò)誤的。
1， gratuitous assumption: It is absurd to say the Hippocrene has been quite successful in the original location of Cumquat Café Restaurant only because the former is planning to open a large outlet in a nearby city.
2， false analogy
3， causal oversimplification: Other factors other than the location that may contribute to the success of the H and the failure of the C should be considered and ruled out.
(原稿空缺)Business is obviously unsuitable to the location. On the other hand, a bank in the same location might be extremely successful simply because of its suitability to the location.
In the third place, the author’s claim that Hippocrene has been successful at Cumquat’s previous location is unwarranted. The fact that Hippocrene intends to open a new outlet is insufficient to establish this claim. It is possible that the plan to open a new outlet was prompted by a lack of business at the Cumquat location.
Finally, the author unfairly assumes that one year’s time at the new location is adequate to conclude whether Cumquat made a mistake in moving to that location. Its is entirely possible that given more time, perhaps another year or so, Cumquat will become profitable at the location. Common sense informs me that this is a distinct possibility, since it often takes more than one year for a restaurant to establish a customer base at a given location.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to evaluate other possible causes of the performance of the businesses and eliminate all except location as the cause in each case. Additionally, it would be necessary to show that location rather than suitability to a location was the cause of the success of Hippocrene and the failure of Cumquat.