4月GMAT作文机经：裁员并与咖啡店合作提升利润

　　【原始】

　　作文：貌似和之前的机经都不一样...说的是某个地方的一堆连锁店的，开头是尽管我们公司最近的销售量都同往年一样，但是利润却在下降，为了提升利润，计划在每个店面削减10个employees以及减少product displays和samples，还打算和一个连锁咖啡店合作，由于调查显示我们的商品和咖啡店的商品相类似，所以和他们合作，可以吸引他们一部分的顾客。

　　【原题】

　　Greentree Grocers has been experiencing high sales volume but decreasing profit margin. Its customers are wealthy people looking for gourmet food and luxury shopping experience, so it must cut costs without hurting the customers' shopping experience. So it plans to layoff 10 employees per store and eliminate expensive displays and free samples. In addition, it will partner with XX Cafe to have a coffee shop in each store. This is supported by a recent survey that the Grocers and the Cafe attract similar types of customers. The conclusion is that Greentree Grocers will experience high sales volume as well as high profit margin

　　【参考思路】

　　1. 作者忽略裁员和减少试用的负面影响，如服务质量下降，顾客满足感下降这种效果在奢侈品店尤为明显，因此可能减少销售量。

　　2. 作者没有对咖啡店的收入成本分析。很可能咖啡店带来的收入弥补不了咖啡店的成本。开咖啡店需要占用更大面积而且雇佣更多员工。

　　3. 另外影响MARGIN的因素有很多，如果原材料成本上升很快，裁员也是杯水车薪。

　　4. survey数据不可靠(how recent,sample是否random chose等等)

　　5.购买GG产品和去咖啡店的错误类比.

　　1. Gratuitous Assumption——那些措施在降低成本的同时不会有其他的影响，不一定，作者忽略 裁员和减少试用 的负面影响 如 服务质量下降，顾客满足感下降 这种效果在奢侈品店尤为明显。 因此可能减少销售量。

　　2. Gratuitous Assumption——开了咖啡店就能增加收入，不一定——收入成本分析cost-benefit analysis。 很可能 咖啡店带来的收入弥补不了咖啡店的成本。 开咖啡店需要占用更大面积而且雇佣更多员工。

　　3. Causal Oversimplification——margin降低是因为员工多展品多。不一定。另外影响MARGIN 的因素有很多，如果原材料成本上升很快，裁员也是杯水车薪。

　　4. 那个survey也有问题——吸引相同的人也不代表去某一个的时候就会去另一个，或者因为想去某一个而去另一个，比如今天不想逛街，就算去喝咖啡也不会去grocery的。 也不知道when，how，target 是什么

　　【参考范文】

　　In the argument, the author concludes that Greentree Grocers will experience high sales volume as well as high profit margin by laying off employees, eliminating expensive displays and free samples and partnering with XX Café to equip each store with a coffee shop. To support the argument, the author claims that this proposal can help cut costs without hurting the customers’ shopping experience. In addition, the author cites a recent survey which shows that the Grocers and the Café attract similar types of customers. At the first glance, the author’s argument appears somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from several logical flaws.

　　In the first place, the author commits the fallacy of “Gratuitous Assumption”.

　　The author unfairly assumes that these changes can help cut costs without bring about other influences.

　　However, the author fails to consider the negative effects of laying off people and eliminating expensive displays and free samples.

　　It is possible that customers may feel less contented because fewer clerks and displays reduce the luxury shopping experience, in turn causing a fall in sales.

　　Thus, it is impossible to conclude that these changes will meet the expected goals.

　　In the second place, the author commits again the fallacy of “Gratuitous Assumption”.

　　The argument rests on the ill-founded assumption that equipping each grocer with a coffee shop is sure to bring up more sales.

　　However, it is not necessarily the case.

　　Without providing a detailed cost-benefit analysis, the author can’t justify that the partnership with XX Cafe is going to work.

　　It is possible that the partnership would cost the Greentree Grocers so much money that the sales from the coffee shop can’t offset because more areas and more employees are required.

　　In the third place, the author commits the fallacy of “Causal Oversimplification”.

　　The author uses the positive correlation between the margin and the number of employees and displays to establish causality.

　　However, the fact that these two things coincides with each other does not necessarily mean that the latter causes the former.

　　The reasoning is fallacious unless other causal explanations have been considered and ruled out. For example, the increasing cost of the material cost may account for the decreasing margin. Under this circumstance, laying off people and eliminating displays are just “A drop in a Bucket”.

　　In the fourth place, the survey is too vague to be informative.

　　The author fails to mention in the argument who conducted the survey, who responded and when, where, how the survey was conducted.

　　Lacking the information about the number of people surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible for us to access the validity of the result.

　　For example, if only 10 people responded to the survey, the result of the survey is far from useful

　　Unless these questions are answered, the result of the survey is worthless as evidence of the argument.

　　In conclusion, the argument is logically flawed for the above reasons. To substantiate the argument, the author should provide more information and evidence to figure out the exact reasons for the decreasing margin. Also, the author needs more information to conclude that the partnership with XX Café will meet its goal. In addition, possibilities that would undermine this argument should be considered and eliminated.