The following appeared in a memo from the manager of UpperCuts salon According to a nationwide demographic study more and more people today are moving from suburbs to downtown areas In order to boost sagging profits at UpperCuts we should take advantage o

The Manager of Uppercuts states in a memo that UpperCuts is likely to increase its profit if it relocates to the downtown area of Apton’s city. This argument seems very logical based on the evidence of migration to the downward area presented by the national demographic study and the supporting evidence of the success recorded by a competitor – Hair-Dooz who recently moved to the downtown area. However, this conclusion was drawn based on some questionable assumptions, which when carefully analyzed might weaken the authors conclusion.

Firstly, the author assumes that the relocation of more people to Apton’s downtown area automatically signifies that a greater number of people would be able to afford, and willing to pay for Uppercuts services. While this might hold true, it is pertinent to consider that the people who are relocating to the downtown area might not be a part of Uppercuts clientele - those who require Uppercuts services. Also, the migrating class might be a group of low budget residents who would be unable to pay the fees for UpperCuts services as presaged by the manager. If any of the above holds true, then the argument that relocation would increase Uppercuts profit is significantly flawed.

Secondly, the argument relies on the unwarranted assumption that Hair-Dooz recorded success in the downtown area is as a result of its migration to that area. By this reasoning the author doesn’t take into consideration whether or not Hair-Dooz was thriving even before they relocated, but prematurely concludes that their relocation resulted in the success recorded. Also, it is possible that Hair-Dooz migration was for another reason order than for profit maximization. If this is found to be true, then the argument is further flawed for a premature comparison.

The author’s conclusion further relies on the assumption that the market situations for both Brainaid and Apton are analogous, and that any situation that worked in Brainaid would also work in Apton. This assumption might hold water in some cases but might not in other cases. For example if most of the residents of the downtown area in Brainaid city are sole consumers of the services offered by the saloon of interest in Brainaid city, but are not sole consumers of the services offered by Uppercuts, then this argument would not hold true. Also, the saloon of interest in Brainaid city might be successful for various other reasons such as the quality of the services rendered, the fairness of their service fees, the manner in which they interact with their customers etc. which have absolutely nothing to do with their location in the city. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.

In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide more evidence such as why Hair-Dooz relocated, what factors have contributed to the Brainard salon's success, what factors other than location might have contributed to UC's sagging profits at the mall, which would put into perspective the above mentioned concerns, then it will be possible to fully evaluate, and therefore strengthen the viability of the proposed relationship between relocating to a downtown area and maximizing profit for Uppercuts.