菜鸟第一篇AA，20号上战场，求点拨~

summer0802

A local chain Greentree Grocers has been experiencing high sales volume but decreasing profit margin. Its customers are wealthy people looking for gourmet food and luxury shopping experience, so it must cut costs without hurting the customers' shopping experience. So it plans to layoff 10 employees per store and eliminate expensive displays and free samples. In addition, it will partner with Cabaree Coffee Cafe to have a coffee shop in each store. This is supported by a recent survey that the Grocers and the Cafe attract similar types of customers. The conclusion is that Greentree Grocers will experience high sales volume as well as high profit margin.

In this argument, the author asserts that Greentree Grocers will experience high sales volume as well as high profit margin after some changes. To substantiate this conclusion, the author claims that the layoff of workers and the elimination of displays will cut costs. The author further bolsters his conclusion by survey that the cooperation with the café will attract more customers. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but close scrutiny reveals that the line of reasoning employed is invalid and hence the conclusion is probably misleading due to several critical logic flaws. In short, the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains, and lack of credibility in reasoning causes the conclusion to be problematic.


In the first place, the author based his claim partly on the gratuitous assumption that laying off employees and eliminating displays and free samples will cut cost without hurting consumers’ feelings. However, the author presented no evidence that supports this argument. Lacking such evidence between the existence of displays and the consumers’ feelings, it is equally possible that the eliminating may greatly influence consumers’ mood when they do shopping in the grocer. Hence, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.


In the second place, the evidence provided in the support for the conclusion is the survey that the Grocers and the Cafe attract similar types of customers. The poll cited by the author is too vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, or when, where and how the poll was conducted. Lacking such information, it is impossible to access validity of the results.


In the third place, if it turns out that high sales volume and high profit margin are due to a combination of factors, it would be difficult for them if lack any of those elements. To be specific, in this case, factors such as the price of the goods, the attitude of the employees, and the location of the grocers also play a significant role in determining sales and profit.


To sum up, the author fails to provide adequate justification for this argument. The survey and evidence cited are not only vague but also incomplete. The logic reasoning is questionable with several mistakes. The absence of essential information on the link between the plan and the goal results in unsound conclusion. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide additional evidence about the survey. Also, further detailed information regarding other factors contributing to grocers’ goal must be presented. In this way, we could establish the conclusion that Greentree Grocers will experience high sales volume as well as high profit margin.


请拍砖！感激···

Lux

这是从论坛里搜出来的，本月AA的第二题，请问从这几个方面可以对吗?
还有什么是gratuitous assumption?
是不是 AA有“survey” 就可以攻击不representative?
谢谢NN们指点！