argu7 revised

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 consumer. To justify this reasoning 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 claims that opening a cafe will allow Monarch to attract more consumers, he presumes that the buyer will definitely welcome this change. However, he fails to consider and rule out some other alternative explanations. It is quite possible that people 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 consumers but may cause a huge lost the exist 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, he assumes that the survey is solid and lower demographic percentile indicates less people directly. 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 the situation that 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, no other relevant factors will change in the future, and neither any anecdotal evidence nor any explainable scientific evidence is provided to prove his argument. It's equally possible that the parents with 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 reliable assumption 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.





costumers 做服装的人；服饰供应商?
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.在你匆忙在找其他的可能解释的时候，可否先分析出assumption
后面两段类似。
LZ加油，继续努力！



我要写的是consumer^ ，果断是严重错误……

每个攻击点加了assumption，你看对不对？

普渡哥

可以的。写的很好。

桌子上的梨

多谢普度哥鼓励，真开心！

竹林中人

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 consumer. To justify this reasoning 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 claims that opening a cafe will allow Monarch to attract more consumers, he presumes that the buyer will definitely welcome this change. However, he fails to consider and rule out some other alternative explanations. It is quite possible that people 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 consumers but may cause a huge lost the exist 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, he assumes that the survey is solid and lower demographic percentile indicates less people directly. 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 the situation that 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, no other relevant factors will change in the future, and neither any anecdotal evidence nor any explainable scientific evidence is provided to prove his argument. It's equally possible that the parents with 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 reliable assumption 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.





costumers 做服装的人；服饰供应商?
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.在你匆忙在找其他的可能解释的时候，可否先分析出assumption
后面两段类似。
LZ加油，继续努力！



我要写的是consumer^ ，果断是严重错误……

每个攻击点加了assumption，你看对不对？

-- by 会员 桌子上的梨 (2012/10/22 19:33:58)

这篇改的很好，照此以往，必会有大进步