GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文五

　　63. 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.

　　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.

　　Finally, the claim that Cumquat made a mistake in moving may be too hasty, since

　　the conclusion is based on only one years business at the new location. Moreover,

　　given the time it ordinarily takes for a business to develop a new customer base in a new

　　location, the fact that Cumquats volume of business is about the same as before it

　　moved tends to show that the move was a good decision, not a mistake.

　　In conclusion, the claim that Cumquats move was a mistake is ill-founded, since

　　it is based on both poor and incomplete comparisons as welt as on a premature

　　conclusion. To better assess the argument, we need to know what the author is

　　comparing RoboWrenchs performance to; we also need more information about the

　　extent of RoboWrenchs success at this location and why its owners are opening a new