The author makes the case that the owners of Cumquat Café made a sound business decision in moving to a new location. He offers three reasons to support his statement, none of which suggest the owners have made a mistake. First, he asserts that since the old location was occupied by three different stores, it proves that other stores were not successful in that location. The logic here seems flawed. While three businesses might have occupied the space, it does not necessarily indicate that the location was poor for business. In fact, the stores might have prospered individually, but they did not thrive as a unit. If they did succeed, it is because they served a different clientele than Cumquat Café. Second, he notes that Cumquat Café will celebrate its second anniversary in the new location, implying that its old location was never successful. This assertion is also questionable. The first year in business is a crucial time for a start-up business. It is often very hard for a new venture to find and retain customers. If Cumquat Café had not done well in its first year, then the owners would have been forced to move. Without identifying which businesses occupied the old location, it is impossible to know whether the new location was a suitable replacement. Finally, the author suggests that businesses are not likely to succeed in the old location. This opinion is based solely on the assumption that the stores that occupied the location were failures. Nothing was mentioned about the quality of the businesses’ products or services or how they were managed. In other words, the author has merely jumped to a conclusion that he is reluctant to support with evidence

In assessing the soundness of this reasoning, we must also consider the assumptions the author makes. Obviously, he assumes that the owners of the three businesses at the old location were incompetent. We might also assume that the owners of those businesses were in competition with the proprietors of Cumquat Café. Although perhaps unlikely, if the owner of Cumquat Café had posed a threat to those businesses, they could have done something to impede her business. Perhaps they hired a private investigator to follow her every move. In that case, the businesses at the old location might have decided to change their strategy, or go somewhere else. Perhaps they privately complained to the property owner and forced him to evict the upstart Cumquat Café. Without knowing the true circumstances surrounding the closing of the businesses at the old location, the author’s assumption about the owners being incompetent is nothing more than conjecture. Additionally, the assumption that the businesses in the old location were failures might be inaccurate. Perhaps they started out strong, but for one reason or another they closed. Unfortunately, the author did not offer any evidence to substantiate his assumptions

The author’s logic is flawed because he assumes that the businesses at the old location were failing and the three businesses that occupied the new location have already succeeded. However, he doesn’t provide any supporting data to support his assumption that the businesses were failing. Instead, he offers opinions about the businesses. This weakens his argument and calls his conclusions into question. A better argument would have been made by citing specific data, such as sales figures, circulation figures, or the number of complaints received by the businesses at the old location. Using specific examples would have helped the author support his conclusions, but he offered no facts to support his assertions

The author’s reasoning is sound, but his conclusions are based on questionable assumptions. If he had provided more evidence to support his assertions, his reasoning would be stronger.