The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore, a chain ofvideo rental stores.“In order to reverse the recent decline in our profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore’s ten video rental stores. Since we are famous

The argument claims that reducing operating expenses at Movies Galore`s ten video rental stores will improve their profits. Last month one store in downtown Marston significantly decreased its operating expenses by closing at 6:00 P.M. rather than 9:00 P.M. and by reducing its stock by eliminating all movies released more than five years ago. However, it fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated.

First, the argument readily assumes that reducing operational hours in one of the downtown stores decreased its operating expenses. There is no information provided on the location of other nine stores. Most of the times, rental fee and expenditures in downtown are higher than in suburban areas. Hence, we cannot claim that closing at 6:00 P.M. rather than 9:00 P.M. will significantly decrease expenses in other stores as well. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly provided more information concerning the rest of the stores.

Second the argument claims that reducing its stock by eliminating all movies released more than five years ago will also decrease its operating expenses and increase profits. This is again a very week and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between profit and expenses. Rental stores are famous for offering a variety of the film and videos which were released many years ago. Having in stock only recently released films will make Movie Galore stores uncompetitive with other stores. Consequently, it does not guarantee any profit.

Finally, argument does not provide any information on the population of the areas where the rest of the stores are located. What is the social status of the people? Are the rest of the stores located in mid-class level society or people cannot afford renting videos? Are they located in poor neighborhood where people are struggling? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts based on the background of the other stores. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.