The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper The owners of the Cumquat Caf evidently made a good business decision in moving to a new location as can

The argument claims that the decision of the owner of Cumquat Café to move to a new location has been successful as the café will soon celebrate its second anniversary in the new location. The line of reasoning is that since Cumquat Café left its old location, three different businesses have occupied its former location. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, based on which it could be evaluated. In addition, the argument reveals examples of a leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The final conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes Cumquat Cafes’ move to a new business location is evidently a good decision. To support the claim, the author refers to the soon second anniversary of Cumquat Café in the location. Stated in this way, the argument is a stretch and not sufficient substantiated. Not only is the claim ambiguous because of the word evidently but also the argument does not show any supporting data. The reference to the soon second anniversary weakens the argument as it does not show any business data. For example, the revenue of Cumquat coffee could have been massively decreased during the last two years, and the café only survives because of its drawn credit line. Or the generated revenue just pays the rent. Therefore, the argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated more business data about Cumquat Café.

Second, the argument claims that other businesses are unsuccessful at the old business location of Cumquat Café, since the former location has occupied three different businesses in the last years. This again is a very weak and unsupported claim, as the argument does not show any correlation between the Cumquat Café and the other businesses. To illustrate, it is well known that a Café has a totally different customer base than a pet-grooming shop. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that the other businesses do similar how Cumquat Café did in the location. The Café might have been the only Café in the area, whereas the other businesses could suffer from heavy competition. If the argument had provided more information and evidence for a correlation between the Cumquat Café and the other businesses than the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, the argument concludes that a high tenant change in the old location of Cumquat Cafe implies that the businesses are unsuccessful in that location. This statement again reveals poor reasoning as not only it is not clear whether Cumquat Café is actually successful in its new location, but also it is unsure whether the location is responsible. For example, the reason for the high tenant frequency could result from short-term lease contracts. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably be strengthened if more business data is provided by the author. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.