The writer of the argument asserts that opening a café would attract more customers to Monarch books. The writer further supplies evidence regarding a decline in the percentage of the percentage of the population under age ten. Moreover, the author cites that Regal Books managed to attract more customers by opening its own café. Close scrutiny of the evidences reveals that they lend little creditable support for the recommendation.
First of all, the author’s notion about the attraction of more customers is ambiguous to some extent. Query whether the customers are attracted to buy some coffee, for instance, from the café, or to buy books from the store needs to be answered. I would need to know exactly that customers refer to which of the two cases mentioned above. Assuming that the author refers to customers who buy books, the recommendation would not sound logical. The author overlooks the possibility that the new customers might just intended to have a coffee, yet were not interested to buy books from the store. If this is the case, the author’s recommendation lacks any merit whatsoever.
Another compelling argument against the author’s recommendation has to do with the cited statistics regarding the national census. I would need to know that what portion of the Monarch Books’s sale is consisted of children’s books. Maybe Monarch Books’s major sale is children’s books, in which event the author’s recommendation for disconnecting the children’s book section would amounts to especially poor advice for Monarch Books. In short, without accounting for this plausible scenario, I cannot accept the author’s recommendation.
Finally, the recommendation relies on what might be a false analogy between Monarch Books and Regal Books. In order for Regal Books to act as a model for Monarch Books, the author must assume that all relevant circumstances regarding the two book stores are essentially the same. Absent any evidence that this is the case, the author cannot conclude that opening a café would bring the same results in Monarch Books. Perhaps Regal Books managed to attract more customers due to a successful advertising campaign. Alternatively, maybe Regal Books decreased the price of its books; hence, more customers were attracted to buy books from their stores. In brief, the writer of the argument cannot defend the recommended course of action on the basis of what might be a false analogy between the two stores.
In sum, the argument is not logical, therefore unpersuasive. To bolster the argument the author must: (1) elaborate on the customers, whether they are attracted to buy books or buy a coffee from the café (2) indicate that how much of its sale relates to children’s books (3) provide substantiating evidence that Regal and Monarch Books are similar in all respects.
The writer of the
argument
asserts that opening a café would attract more
customers
to
Monarch
books
. The writer
further
supplies
evidence
regarding a decline in the percentage of the percentage of the population under age ten.
Moreover
, the
author
cites that Regal
Books
managed to attract more
customers
by opening its
own
café.
Close scrutiny
of the
evidences
reveals that they lend
little
creditable support for the recommendation.
First of all
, the
author’s
notion about the attraction of more
customers
is ambiguous to
some
extent. Query whether the
customers
are attracted
to
buy
some
coffee,
for instance
, from the café, or to
buy
books
from the
store
needs to
be answered
. I would need to know exactly that
customers
refer to which of the two cases mentioned above. Assuming that the
author
refers to
customers
who
buy
books
, the
recommendation
would not sound logical. The
author
overlooks the possibility that the new
customers
might
just
intended to have a coffee,
yet
were not interested to
buy
books
from the
store
. If this is the case, the
author’s
recommendation
lacks any merit whatsoever.
Another compelling
argument
against the
author’s
recommendation
has to
do with the cited statistics regarding the national census. I would need to know that what portion of the
Monarch
Books’s sale
is consisted
of
children’s
books
. Maybe
Monarch
Books’s major sale is
children’s
books
, in which
event
the
author’s
recommendation
for disconnecting the
children’s
book
section would
amounts
to
especially
poor advice for
Monarch
Books
. In short, without accounting for this plausible scenario, I cannot accept the
author’s
recommendation.
Finally
, the
recommendation
relies on what might be a false analogy between
Monarch
Books
and Regal
Books
. In order for Regal
Books
to act as a model for
Monarch
Books
, the
author
must
assume that all relevant circumstances regarding the two
book
stores
are
essentially
the same. Absent any
evidence
that this is the case, the
author
cannot conclude that opening a café would bring the same results in
Monarch
Books
. Perhaps Regal
Books
managed to attract more
customers
due to a successful advertising campaign.
Alternatively
, maybe Regal
Books
decreased the price of its
books
;
hence
, more
customers
were attracted
to
buy
books
from their
stores
.
In brief
, the writer of the
argument
cannot defend the recommended course of action on the basis of what might be a false analogy between the two stores.
In sum, the
argument
is not logical,
therefore
unpersuasive. To bolster the
argument
the
author
must
: (1) elaborate on the
customers
, whether they
are attracted
to
buy
books
or
buy
a coffee from the café (2) indicate that how much of its sale relates to
children’s
books
(3) provide substantiating
evidence
that Regal and
Monarch
Books
are similar in all respects.