The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.
　　“The owners of the Cumquat Café evidently made a good business decision in moving to a new location, as can be seen from the fact that the Café will soon celebrate its second anniversary there. Moreover, it appears that businesses are not likely to succeed at the old location: since the Café’s move, three different businesses — a tanning salon, an antique emporium, and a pet –grooming shop — have occupied its former spot.”
　　Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
　　The author’s conclusion is that moving to the new location is a good decision of the owners of Cumquat Café. To substantiate this conclusion, the author points out that the Café will soon celebrate its second anniversary at the new location. Also, the author reasons that the old location is not good for business development of the Café since three different businesses have occupied such spot after the Café’s move. Close scrutiny, however, reveals several logical flaws of this argument.
　　To begin with, the author turns on the assumption that the second anniversary in the new place is a sign of business success of the Café. However, it is not necessarily the case. Lacking more sufficient information about the operating condition of the Café, I have good reason to doubt whether it can attract enough customers and maintain a stable revenue in the place. Probably, the Café have decided to celebrate its second anniversary there only because the owners want to attract people’s attention to the it. That is to say, the mere fact that the Café have remained operating in the new place for two years, in itself, does not suffice to draw the conclusion that it has achieved business success there.
　　Moreover, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the old location and the business failure of the three later businesses. Unless the author could consider and rule out other factors for determining the business failure such as haste price policy, uneffective (ineffective) labor organization, out-of-date technique and so forth, it is totally possible that those businesses failed because of these factors rather than the location. If true, the author’s prediction about the old location would be seriously undermined.
　　Finally, even if those three businesses failed because of the old location, the author still commits a fallacy of false analogy by simply equating the Cumquat Café with the three different businesses. Without better evidence showing enough similarities between the Café and those businesses, it is unwarranted to say that if it didn’t leave the old place, the Café would suffer the same fate as those later business (businesses). In fact, it is entirely possible that near the old location there are many customers who frequently go to a Café but seldom go to tanning salon, antique emporium or pet-grooming shop. If true, the conclusion that the Café cannot succeed at the old location is dubious at best.
　　In sum, based on the reasons I listed above, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it, the author should provide better evidence that (1) the Cumquat Café’s revenue has increased or at least remained stable during the two years after it moved to the new place (2) the business failure of the three later businesses is only caused by the bad location (3) the Cumquat Café and these three businesses share enough similarities to suffer the same fate.
　　以上为大家推荐了一些GMAT作文考试的实用模板，考生可以适当参考，并通过大量的写作练习来逐步提高自己的GMAT作文的写作水平，从而在GMAT考试中取得更好的成绩。