The following appeared in a memorandum from the regional manager of the Taste of Italy restaurant chain:
“After the first month of service, the new restaurant in the Flatplains Mall, which uses the Chipless brand of wine glasses, has reported a far lower rate of breakage than our other restaurants that use the Elegance brand. Since servers and bartenders at all of our restaurants frequently report that breakage is a result of the type of wineglass, and the customers at the Flatplains Mall restaurant seem to like the Chipless style of glasses, we should switch all of our restaurants to the Chipless brand.”
Regional manager of the Taste of Italy restaurant chain has failed to convince us that all restaurants of the chain should switch from the Elegance brand to the Chipless brand of wine glasses. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact which renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.
First of all, regarding the lower rate of breakage and taking into consideration that the restaurant in Flatplains Mall is a new one, it may have served fewer customers than the average of the restaurant chain. This ambiguous fact in turn, suggests that the time frame in which the data was sampled is too short, in contrast to the rest restaurants of the chain which may operate for a longer period of time. Thus, the report of lower rate may be unsustainable when comparing data based on different background, as it is possible that a longer period of time should be required to draw safer conclusions.
Next, the author states that employers frequently report that breakage is a result of the type of wineglass. However, there is not any statistical report regarding what portion of the total wine glass breakage is purely because of the glass type and not some other possible factor, like improper handling of the glasses due to dishwashing, accidents by customers' carelessness or something else. The author should have provided more information on how "frequently" should be correctly interpreted.
Furthermore, the author of the memorandum concludes that the restaurant chain should switch all of its glass assets to Chipless brand glasses since the customers of the Flaplains Mall restaurant seem to like it. However, the author does not provide any further information on how the sample of customers should be considered statistically valid. Were the customers asked to choose which glass is better between the two brands proposed in the argument or were they only exposed to Chipless brand wine glasses? Was the sample of customers asked large and diverse enough? The author should have provided more details about this point.
Last of all, the author does not inform us about the basis of the critical assumption that the restaurant chain will be financially capable to switch all of its glasses to the Chipless brand. No information is provided regarding how many restaurants are in the chain, how many of them have to undergo that change and what the total cost of the process will be. An appropriate reference to this point would significantly affect the strength of the argument.
To sum up, based on unsubstantiated assumptions and poor evidence, the author's reasoning does not provide concrete support for the stated conclusion. If the author had provided more information relating the rate and the actual numbers of breakage throughout the restaurant chain, a more solid justification of the customers' preference on the glass type and more financial data about the feasibility of the switch process, it would have been more thorough and convincing.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2021-02-28 | kalejuilee | 60 | view |
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field o 93
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the Director of the Human Resources to the executive officers of Company X Last year we surveyed our employees on improvements needed at Company X by having them rank in order of importance the issues presented 80
- College students should be encouraged to pursue subjects that interest them rather than the courses that seem most likely to lead to jobs.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain y 80
- “One should not expect respect for disregarding the opinions of others. Only when every point of view is taken into consideration should people take action in the world.” 93
- The following appeared in an internal memo circulated amongst the partners of a small graphic design firm:“When the economy was growing, there were more graphics jobs than there were designers and many designers could make more money working as independen 60
Comments
So just because I used 'No
So just because I used 'No information is provided...' the whole argument is considered invalid? Isnt a good argument to question the financial feasibility of the proposal?
No, not because you used 'No
No, not because you used 'No information is provided...', in GRE if 'No information is provided...', it means no loopholes. for example in this topic, if you question the financial feasibility, first of all, maybe they don't have any financial issues (no any text in the topic) , second, other users may question management, marketing, training..., they could be problems too in reality.
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
argument 4 -- not OK. when you asked 'No information is provided...', basically you are in the wrong way. You only argue whatever the data is available.
suggested:
It works for location A (a restaurant , community, nation,), but it doesn't mean it works for location B (another restaurant, community, nation). for example, some people in the north may like Elegance brand.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 494 350
No. of Characters: 2476 1500
No. of Different Words: 216 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.714 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.012 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.823 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.444 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.413 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.605 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5