The statement claims that Rialto Movie Theater should follow the instance of the new Apex Theater in order to thrive. Additionally, Depend on the recent survey, it should also offer the same conveniences as Apex. Stated in that way, the argument manipulates fact and convey a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evident. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.Firstly, the argument readily assumes that by emulating the way Apex Theater carries out strategy, Rialto Movie Theater could enjoy the same results. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The Author does not consider the differences between two theatres. The discrepancies between their location, the distribution of population of two areas or the contents of movies released could influence the choice of audience. Hence, copying the operation model of one theatre to another could have no effect if above-mentiond factors remain unchanged. The argument could have been a lot more convincing if it had explicitly stated that all relevant factors of the two theatre are the same.Secondly, the argument claims that over 85% of people who are interviewed said that high ticket cost make them reluctant to go to the cinema. This is again a very weak and unsupported view as the argument does not mention about the scale of that survey. How many people are asked ? What kind of people asked ? Are they the local or just travellers ? If the population of the city or town in which Rialto Movie Theater locates is 1 million and the interview only question 50 people, it would be not reliable. If these people are travellers or aged, they could not love enjoying movies in the local theatre. The argument could have been much clearer if it had provided evidence which demonstrates the appropriate scale of the survey.Finally, even the survey questions a large number of local citizens, which is the content of the survey is still unknown. The question here is that which choices they could select ? It is quite possible that they just have a few selections about which reason prevent them from going to the theatre: high price, deleterous smell inside the cinema and have two much work. Without convincing answer to that question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.In conclusion, the argument is flaw for the above-mentioned reason and is therefore unconvincing. It could have be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all relevent facts. In order to assess the merit of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge about all contributing factors. Without that information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.