The following is a recommendation from the Board of Directors of Monarch Books."We recommend that Monarch Books open a café in its store. Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a large customer base because i

The given argument is initiated by the claim that opening a café will allow Monarch to attract more customers and better compete with Regal Books, which recently opened its own café.". An overview to the argument would lead the reader to be convinced by the authenticity of the claim. However, on further scrutiny, one can notice various weak links that stand as conspicuous logical flaws.

First of all, the author, by taking such a decision, he pollutes the traditional culture of the book store which mainly built to save the authenticity of the nation. The book stores are the place where we can enjoy our history and satisfy our knowledge not our stomach. These places must be kept pristine. For that, I can't bolster the claim of the author even if this cafe would attract more customers because these customers will come to the store not to buy books and enrich their minds but to have drinks. Besides, there are already a lot of cafes to perform this job for these customers.

In addition, the author did mention data without any evidence about its verity. The author should first provide a survey for his customers to see if they would accept this idea and if this cafe would really serve their needs or it would be just a distraction for them. Another survey should be completed about the other book store to clarify the real reason of the increasing rate of the customers there. This increasing rate may be due to the better offered service and the higher quality of performance in the other book store. Without further information about this store and the factors that encourage it to built a cafe, no reliable conclusion can be done.

Another glaring loophole in the argument is the unfair judgment the author made about the book section of children. The book stores must do their best to attract children not to push them away by removing their section. The owner of the book store should search for the reasons that make fewer children be not interested in books. This may be because author provides unsuitable and unattractive books for these children.

Furthermore, the author did make unsubstantiated assumption regarding the percentage of the children under ten years old who buy books. This is a classic case of hasty generalization because the author did degenerate an individual experiment into a general one. The author should support his premise with sufficient valid data so his claim would be more convinced. Even if his claim is proved to be right, we must not encourage this attitude from the owners of the book stores but, on the other hand, we must put our hand on the leading factors of this phenomenon and treat them to save our culture.

Therefore, in light of above, the author's claim seems to be implausible. He did try to utilize assumptions and present facts to reach the fidelity of his claim but he did ignore that, in the long run, this claim will harm the society and distort its essence. The author should put into consideration the public benefit over his own one.