92. The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.
“Hippocrene Plumbing Supply recently opened a wholesale outlet in the location once occupied by the Cumquat Cafe. Hippocrene has apparently been quite successful there because it is planning to open a large outlet in a nearby city. But the Cumquat Cafe, one year after moving to its new location, has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year’s. Clearly, the former site is a better business location, and the Cumquat Cafe has made a mistake in moving to its new address.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

(原稿空缺)Business is obviously unsuitable to the location. On the other hand, a bank in the same location might be extremely successful simply because of its suitability to the location.
In the third place, the author’s claim that Hippocrene has been successful at Cumquat’s previous location is unwarranted. The fact that Hippocrene intends to open a new outlet is insufficient to establish this claim. It is possible that the plan to open a new outlet was prompted by a lack of business at the Cumquat location.
Finally, the author unfairly assumes that one year’s time at the new location is adequate to conclude whether Cumquat made a mistake in moving to that location. Its is entirely possible that given more time, perhaps another year or so, Cumquat will become profitable at the location. Common sense informs me that this is a distinct possibility, since it often takes more than one year for a restaurant to establish a customer base at a given location.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to evaluate other possible causes of the performance of the businesses and eliminate all except location as the cause in each case. Additionally, it would be necessary to show that location rather than suitability to a location was the cause of the success of Hippocrene and the failure of Cumquat.