Second, the author implies that the ad agency failed to implement Road Foods guidelines, and that this failure was the reason for disappointing profits. However, it is equally possible that the ad agency faithfully followed all suggestions from Road Food, and that those suggestions were the cause of the disappointing profits. In this respect, the author unfairly shifts blame from Road Food to the ad agency.
Third, the authors comparison between Road Food and Street Eats is less relevant than a comparison between Road Foods own profits prior to its latest ad campaign and its profits during this campaign. Comparing its own profits during these time periods would more accurately reflect the ad agencys effectiveness than comparing profits of two different companies.
Finally, the author assumes that the ad agency will be more motivated if its fee is based on Road Food profits. However, the author does not support this claim. In fact, given that Road Foods profits have been lower than expected, it is just as likely that the ad agency would be less motivated by the suggested fee structure than by some other fee structure.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the vice president must provide evidence that the ad campaign caused last years disappointing profits, and must examine and rule out other factors that may have contributed to disappointing profits.
【GMAT考试写作例文224篇连载】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02