47.
In this argument the author concludes that Cumquat Cafe was correct in its decision to move to a new location. In support of this assessment the author points out that while the Cafe has been in business for two years at its new location, three businesses have failed at its previous location. The authors line of reasoning is that the cause of the failure of the three businesses is the fact that they all occupied the same location. This argument is problematic in two important respects.
In the first place, no evidence has been offered to support the assumption that the reason the three businesses failed was their location. While location is an important contributing factor to a business success or failure, it is not the only such factor. Many other reasons―poor business practices, lack of advertising, or poor customer service―could just as likelyaccount for their lack of success. Lacking a detailed analysis of the reasons these businesses failed, it would be foolish to attribute their failure to their location.
In the second place, while location may have been a factor which contributed to the failure of these businesses, the reason may not have been the location itself but rather the suitability of the business to the location. For example, a pet-grooming shop or a tanning salon located in a downtown metropolitan business district is unlikely to succeed simply because this type of 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 conclusion, the authors argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to evaluate other possible causes of the failure of the three businesses, then in each case eliminate all possible causes except location.
48.
Based upon the profitability of the Croesus Company and the fact that it was recently converted from public to private ownership, the author concludes that private ownership is better for businesses than public ownership. I find this argument unconvincing in two respects.
In the first place, the evidence the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. One example is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. Unless it can be shown that Croesus Company is representative of all companies that have converted from public to private ownership, the conclusion that all companies would be more profitable under private ownership is completely unwarranted. In fact, in the face of such limited evidence it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.
In the second place, the author assumes that the reason for Croesus profitability was its conversion from public to private ownership. This assumption, however, is not supported in the argument. In the absence of evidence to support this assumption many other explanations for Croesus Companys profitability are possible. For example, its success may be due to the fact that Croesus has few competitors or because the product or service it provides is unique, or because it has an exceptionally skilled management team.
In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the conclusion, additional examples of successful companies that converted from public to private ownership are required. Additionally, the author would have to show that the reason for the success of these companies was the fact that they were privately owned.