argu 7 第一次限时 40min

桌子上的梨

The presenter concludes that Monarch Books should discontinue the children's book section and open a cafe instead, he predicts opening a cafe will allow Monarch to attract more costumers. To justify this he cites that the Regals books opened its own cafe, also he points out this will help to compete with Regal books. Granted that it seems to be somewhat appealing, the argument relies on a series of unsustainable assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands.
In the first place, the author presumes that opening a cafe will allow Monarch to attract more costumers. However, he fails to consider and rule out some other alternative explanations. It is quite possible thatpeople go to bookstores to stay in a quiet environment to read books, but the smell and noise coming along with the cafe can be annoying and drive them away. In this case, the cafe won't attract new customs but may cause a huge lost the former ones. Perhaps Regal opened the cafe just because their book selling is really poor. Or perhaps the coffee section in Regals books is not successful at all.Unless the author can demonstrate that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely, the conclusion is open to doubt.
Secondly, the arguer arrives at the conclusion that there will be a significant decline of the population under age ten. While he provides no evidence that this is the case. It's quite possible that the nation-wide census doesn't apply to this single place.Maybe the decline in the percentage of the population under ten doesn't means the decline in the absolute number. Just consider if there are many workers rushed in the city and the percentile change won't signify the decline in children's number.
In addition to these serious problems, even if all the foregoing assumptions are justified, the presenter just simply assumes that less children means less selling in children's book, and neither any anecdotal evidence nor any explainable scientific evidence is provided to prove his argument. It's equally possible that the parents will less children can spend more money on their children's education and devoting more money on books. Also the grown-ups can read children's books. Any of these scenarios, if true, will cast considerable doubts on the arguer's deduction.
In sum, the author fails to provide strong justification for the argument that the children's book section will suffer a decline and replacing it with a cafe is a good idea. As it stands, the argument doesn't constitute a solid evidence in favor of the recommendation. To bolster it, the author has better provide solid evidence--perhaps by way of a local survey--that the customers of children's book are reduced and the trend will go on for a long time. To better assess this argument, I would also need to know more details about the cafe won't drive away those who prefer a quiet place just for read.