"Despite its downtown location, the Rialto Movie Theater, a local institution for five decades, must make big changes or close its doors forever. It should follow the example of the new Apex Theater in the mall outside of town. When the Apex opened last y

In order to hold its share of spectators that the Rialto Movie Theater (RMT) should have install new sound system, plush carpeting and seats as well as a video arcade. These changes should help the RMT in its competition with the new Apex Theater (AT) for viewers. The recommendation is buttressed by several evidences; however, does the originator of the argument manage to create a sound argument? To find an answer on this question and give a comprehensive estimation of soundness of the conclusion these evidences should be questioned.

First of all, the cental assumption of the recommendation is that two movie theatres have to compite for the viewers. This assumption has no supportive evidences, moreover, the given information points on the fact that they have different location. The RMT is situated in the downtown and the AT is situated on the ourskirts of the town. Perhaps, they have distict audience and therefore they should not compete with each other. This recommendation might have made stronger had the writer given us information which maintains that two theaters have to share the same audience.

What is more, the recommendation avers that a recent survey demonstrates that more than 85 per cent of the public are not able to visit a movie theater more than 5 times per year. At the same time, the 15 per cent are neglected, probably, these people are the most active moviegoers who watch movies in the cinema much more often, for instance, 20 or even 25 times per year. In this case, the sullen picture which is drawn by the recent survey seems to be better. Moreover, as we said above, perhaps, these two theatres do not contend with each other because their spectators live in different parts of the city. Therefore, the alteration of the RMT equipment and atmosphere will not impact on the number of viewers who visit it.

Besides, the argument claims that repeating of features of the AT will give the RMT some competitive advanatages; unfortunately, this assumption was not supported by the writor. We may maintain that the RMT with its fifty years old story has its charisma and atmosphere which may attract local residence, consequently, the proposed alterations may have a negative impact on the attractiveness of the theater. The argment could have been stronger had the arguer given us some data which bolsters the idea that new changes would be positively accepted by the visitors of the theater. Till we do not have this information ,the author's belief remains unwarranted and therefore the prediction may not bring expected result.

In conclusion, the proposed idea to change the appearance and the equipment in the RMT is based on unsupported assumptions and author's beliefs therefore, the fulfillment of the proposed recommendation may not lead to desirable result. To secure the profit of the RMT additional data should be collected to learn more about public desires and preferences.