【寄托No.1】杀G小组 第4次作业 A117
现在开始常规训练，目的是为了增加大家的解题速度，打字速度，句式词汇应用
大家一起加油！
作业要求：
（1）331的同学2月23晚上之前完成，其他同学24晚上之前，大家在这个帖子里，每人占一楼，把自己的作业贴上去
（2）具体的内容要求：
A、写作题目为 新117
B、一定注意文章的要求，可以参照一下我的那篇word的观点
（3）提交作业之后，请互改的伙伴尽快修改好，一天时间，最多两天，特殊原因跟我说吗。
（4）小组人数目前已经确定，请大家继续努力，互相帮助，杀G成功！ 本帖最后由 leijerry888 于 2012-2-24 01:18 编辑
总用时1个半小时。。。汗啊。。。。刻意的写的简短了一些，413。希望得到大家的评价。
In this memo, the authorgave a conclusion of returning to Buzzoff pest control company based on aseemly reliable comparison between the situations in Palm City and Wintervale. However, after precise evaluation of theevidences provided, there is no way we come to the author’s conclusion.
First, the merely comparison of values of food loses caused bypest damage between the two city is partial. By doing this comparison, theauthor simply assumed that there were no other factors which would affect theeffects of loses of food caused by pest. This assumption is untenable. For example,the surrounding pest environments of the two cities may be not the same. Maybe thepest control service provided by Fly-Away company in Palm City is moreefficient. And the relatively more lose of food in Palm City is due to a muchmore serious pest incident. Based on this situation, the author’s conclusionbecame unwarranted. In addition, a comparison with only one variable factorwill be more reasonable. For instant, a comparison of effects of pest controlbetween the two companies in the same city with the same pest and otherenvironment valuables.
Additionally, a one-month effect is too short to be reliable. We candefinitely know that a longer cooperation between business partners provides abetter result. There is no reason to blame a new partner of doing bad based onthe standards fit for a static partner. Perhaps the newer company can bettercontrol the lose of food caused by pest if it has several more months to befamiliar with the situation it deals with. So a tenable comparison should precludeeffects like this and bases on static and reasonable data.
Moreover, the author provided that Fly-Away company charged lower,but also assumed that it’s insufficient to make this company a better choice. However,without a more specific data of the charges and effects of these two companies,we can make no valuable judgment. A “considerably lower” charge proves nothing.What if the charge less company, after a whole consideration of all the factorssuch as charges, pest control profits, proves to be a more economic choice? Withoutmore particular investigation of the two companies, a relatively small chargeis more or less a useless evidence.
In conclusion, maybe it’s a good choice of returning to Buzzoffcompany. However, the assumptions made by the author are far from convincing. Tomake a responsible conclusion, more reliable evidences need to be provided. 本帖最后由 cinkie 于 2012-2-24 01:03 编辑
{:3_67:}
前后时间加起来一共47min，527words 感觉语言表达好纠结，经常找不到如何表达的词汇，囧，还得加强啊！
In this argument, the arguer claims that for the purpose of economy, the company should return to Buzzoff Pest Control Company. In order to substantiate his proposition, the arguer cites that last month Fly-Away Pest Control Company lost more worth of food. The reason seems plausible at first glance, nevertheless, several details need to be checked before reaching this conclusion.
First of all, the arguer rests on the assumption that the perished food in Fly-Away only results from pest damage, and thus Fly-Away is not a responsible pest control company. Nevertheless, this assumption is unwarranted as the arguer obliviate several possibilities. It is entirely possible that the company unintentionally place the food that already had been damaged by pest, but in an undiscernible way. After a month of storage, the food began to decay. And there is also a possibility that due to the pest spread over Palm City, the company had tried their best to protect the food and the damage is relatively low compared with other companies. Without ruling out these circumstances, the arguer fails to reason us of the conclusion.
Even conceding that pest damage is the only reason for the lost, the arguer further assumes that their warehouses separately in Palm City and Wintervale have the same condition and are comparable. Common sense dictates that different locations have different situations, say weather, terrain, vegetation,etc. Chances are high that warehouse in Palm City is a better habitat for certain kinds of pests, and Wintervale is relatively a better place to store food. Also, the two warehouses of the company may have different manage systems. It is possible that warehouse in Wintervale has higher efficiency than in Palm City, and it facilitates the way for the pest control company to carry out their tasks.
What is more, the arguer wrongfully assumes that returning to Buzzoff would definitely save money for the company. Only comparing the total figures of loss of the food, the arguer overlooks several essential factors. The mere fact that Fly-Away has more loss than Buzzoff in number could not convince the company that Buzzoff is more qualified. We have to know the specific proportion of the loss among the scale of entire food stored in each warehouse, and then evalute the degree of loss. It is likely that Buzzoff has a higher proportion of loss and therefore disproves itself a responsible company. Even admitting the assumptions above, the arguer still could not be absolutely confident about the economy. Since Buzzoff charges higher and has better pest control services, it might require more pay for the cost of shifting its established strategies. And it is also possible that Buzzoff would be more smug and reject the company's demand.
Saving the money of a company is an undeniable important factor in business practice, the initial intuitive of the vice president is warranted. However, the arguer fails to convince us of the change of business as he/she makes several incomplete assumptions. To better bolster his conclusion, careful and specific conditions need to be evaluated and several indispensible factors have to be taken into accunt. While the argument does present us a concern, more information is required to justify the conclusion. 本帖最后由 846136085 于 2012-2-24 23:54 编辑
第一次限时，虽然是45分钟的限时兄弟们！！来吧！！
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
In this memo, the vice president tried toconvince us that the best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for allour pest control services, even though the price charged by Fly-Away is lower.It is somewhat convincing at the first glance, however, the argument isweakened by not taking enough details into consideration.
Firstly, the vice president reached theconclusion by making a comparison of food loss by pest damage in two city inone month. Considering it more carefully, we can see that the comparison ispartial and based on two assumptions. One is that the storage condition in twocity is the same and there are no uncontrolled factors, such as naturaldisasters, sudden burst of pest, which can cause much more food loss; the otheris the food stored in the two city has the same value. Since the twoassumptions cannot prove warranted, the comparison doesn't make much sense assupposed by the vice president. Maybe there was a sudden pest burst in PalmCity, and Fly-Away reduced the loss to only $20,000; or maybe the food storedin Palm City has much more value than that in Wintervale, so much less loss infood caused much more loss in money. So we cannot say Buzzoff provide betterpest control service than Fly-Away just based on what the vice president said.
Secondly, even given that the comparisondoes make some sense, one month is too short for judging a company's service;we need much long time to be reliable in a comparison. Even it can be provedthat Buzzoff provides better pest control service in Winterval than Fly-Away inPalm City, no one can guarantee that Buzzoff can still provide better servicein other places, considering the climate and many other factors vary muchacross the nation. So we need more records in more places in longer time,before we could make a judgment about the pest control service provided by thetwo companies.
Last, but not the least, the vice presidentreached the point "saving money" in the end, however, we cannot reachthat point until we get the specific data about the value of food loss and theservice expense charged by the two companies, not some obscure data, like“relatively lower”. Assuming that Buzzoff can reduce the loss by $100,000 ayear, but charges $200,000 more than Fly-Away, it is apparently not a brilliantdecision for the food distribution company.
No one can deny the importance of savingmoney for a company, and of course it is a duty for the management. As mentionedabove, much more research work about the pest-controlling companied should bedone before the recommendation of returning back to Buzzoff is accepted.
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～ 本帖最后由 琼央 于 2012-2-23 22:43 编辑
The author of the passage suggests return to the Buzz-off Company for the pest control services in order to save money. Evidently some examples are shown to support his/her opinion, saying Palm City’s food storage warehouse under pest control of Fly-away Company suffered more than two times losses than that in Winter Vale of Buzz-off. Although the argument is logically related, there are still details remaining unclear and might lead to an obscure conclusion. In this sense, only if all the holes are repaired can we judge whether the suggestion is valid or not.
According to the author, the reason why the Buzz-off Company providing better pest control service than Fly-away is that food storage warehouse taken care by Buzz-off last month in Winter Vale had $10,000 worth less food destroyed than Palm City’s. But the evidence given is far less warranted.
First, the data source of the survey is doubtful. We can never tell whether or not the food storage in Palm City is indeed worse than Winter Vale base on ambiguous or even false records. If headstream of the data proves to be a fake, then black case work may probably exist in the process of data collecting. Also, the accuracy of the data requires further survey. In this passage, results of last month are used to indicate that Fly-away disappointed the author in pest control compared with the Buzz-off Company. The argument, however, is not well-grounded because data of a month is inadequate to demonstrate that Buzz-off in all or at least most of the previous months had done a better job than Fly-away. For instance, there may happen to be a natural disaster last month in Pulp and leave all the pest control work in vain, but at the same time Winter Vale may luckily enjoy its best time of a year. Data of last month maybe authentic but mingles with absolute contingency. It’s all too imprudent to say anything with such little information, not even to conclude that using Buzz-off can surely save money.
Second, the author indicates that Pulp City has greater loss and worse protection comparing the two extent of damage, but not takes into account the differences between Palm City and Winter Vale. Supposed Palm is a city located in an excessively warm, damp and wooded place which provides perfect cradle for pest while Winter Vale is diametrically as cold as its name suggested, the $10,000 gap may not surprise us or lead us into Fly-off offering bad service. In this sense, circumstance is the max factor determining which company works preferable against pest and the amount of money used is no longer a tool to evaluate the quality of the two company’s work.
Last, the actual cost of two companies is equivocally stated. The author prefers to return to Buzz-off Company for it saves much more money than Fly-away, even if the latter charged not as much as the former. But is that true? Supposed we all agree to the evidence that Fly-away bring more than $20,000 losses to the food distribution company while Buzz-off only $10,000, we can still claim that Fly-away is a better choice only if it charges weight less than Buzz-off, or in other words, the margin of Buzz-off outnumbers the gap of loss between the two companies. No summing-up should be made until prudent calculation is done. 本帖最后由 greenbeanmeimei 于 2012-2-23 13:24 编辑
:D 写了492字 1小时吧 2.23:$
求指点！主要是一些反例不知道自己举得对不对，还有用词等等，狠狠地批吧~:handshake
In the memo, the vice president compares two pest control companies the food distribution company has signed contracts with and arrives at the conclusion that Buzzoff is better than Fly-Away in face of pest controlling. However, close scrutiny reveals that the recommendation suffers several unwarranted assumptions which make it really unconvincing.
Firstly, the president assumed irresponsibly that all the conditions in warehouses of Palm City are necessarily the same as that in Wintervale. However, storage warehouses might be quite different from each other. Perhaps Palm City's warehouse is much larger than the storage room mentioned in Buzzoff, say three times larger. The $20,000damage of food is thus no more money-consuming in comparison to $10,000 damage in Buzzoff on the same basis of cubic meters. Or perhaps due to the lack of mention in the memo of Wintervale 's location and what’s its warehouse is specifically used for, it is quite possible that food stored in Wintervale is more pest-resistant than the fast-food in Palm City due to weather conditions or the food’s own traits , Also, chances are that Buzzoff is only good at pest-controlling of this specific kind of food while not as proficient as Fly-Away in controlling pest-harassed fast food. All of the possibilities above might weaken the conclusion that Buzzoff is the better.
Take a closer scrutiny, another unwarranted assumption underlies that needs further corroboration. In the memo, comparison is made only according to the recent single month pest controlling conditions between both cities; no warrant can be made to ensure Buzzoff 's better pest-controlling performance in the long run. It might turned out to be the least-worrying month for the Wintervale 's pest-controlling schedule while the most burdening period for Palm City. In this case, Palm City might save much more value of food compared to the $20,000 loss, which is only a small portion of the total potential damage, while Wintervale rescued only a little and lost the majority.
Furthermore, the statement that the difference of $10,000 food damage between the two companies explains pest-controlling performance on the whole is another assumption made by the vice president that needs further details. Cases may be that service fees paid are much less to Fly-Away than to Palm City, perhaps $300,000 per year less, and this gap can surely offset the difference of $10,000 per month, which saves up to $180,000 per year when choosing Fly-Away. In addition, Fly-Away might offer better claiming services and loss-make-up programs that impede further damage to food while Buzzoff does not provide such specialties.
To sum up, the recommendation made by the vice president is rife with so many unwarranted assumptions mentioned above that we cannot assure that Buzzoff does better in money-saving than any other Pest Control companies in the years to come. Only with further survey and more data and details can we make a decision about which company is more likely to make profits in this food distribution company.
by 绿豆 greenbean
Where there is a will, there is a way!
有志者事竟成！加油！ 本帖最后由 babyenoch 于 2012-2-23 16:38 编辑
搞定了。。。。求拍
117 The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities.
"Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used for many years in Palm City, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
---------------------------
提纲
Firstly, it is unfair to infer based solely on the comparison between the worth of food destroyed by pest damage that B does better work than A.
Secondly, the vice president's recommendation rests on the assumption that B will do well in the pest control services of all warehouses.
Finally, even if B will do well in the pest control services of all warehouses, in claiming that to return to B for all our control services is the best means of saving money the vice president assumes that the company has only two alternatives---A and B, and there are no other ways to control pest.
----------------------------
(476words, 45 min)
The vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities argues here that the best way of saving money in to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services. To support this argument the vice president points out that over $20,000 worth of food in the warehouse where the pest control services is provided by Fly-Away had been destroyed by pest damage last month, while only $10,000 worth of food had been destroyed where the pest control services is provided by Buzzoff at the same time. The argument, however, is rife with a series of assumptions, and thus, is wholly unpersuasive.
Firstly, it is unfair to infer based solely on the comparison between the worth of food destroyed by pest damage that Buzzoff does better work than Fly-Away. The inference relies on the poor assumption that the comparative quality of two company's services, rather than some other phenomenon, was responsible for the comparative economic loss of the two warehouses. Perhaps the poor food packaging at the warehouse in Palm City or the breakout of pest damage at that time was responsible for the loss. For that matter, perhaps the food price at the warehouse in Palm City is higher than that in Wintervale; thus, though the total value of destroyed food is higher, maybe the amount is lower than that in Wintervale. In short, without showing that all other conditions in the two cities have been essential the same, the vice president cannot convince me that quality of the two company's work was responsible for the difference in how much food had been destroyed by the pest damage.
Secondly, the vice president's recommendation rests on the assumption that Buzzoff will do well in the pest control services of all warehouses. But the vice president presents no evidence to support his assumption. Maybe Buzzoff cannot service well at some warehouses where the pest damage is special.
Finally, even if Buzzoff will do well in the pest control services of all the warehouses, in claiming that to return to Buzzoff for all our control services is the best means of saving money the vice president assumes that the company has only two alternatives -- Fly-Away and Buzzoff, and there are no other ways to control pest. In all likelihood, the company can engage one of many other companies instead. To some extent, thus, the vice president recommends Buaaoff over not only Fly-Away but many any other companies, the recommendation is unwarranted. On the other hand, perhaps many other means can solve the pest damage which will cost less money, such as improving the storage facilities.
The paragraph given merely scratches the surface of what must be evaluated about the pest control services in order to saving money. Much more work is needed by the food distribution company before the recommendation is accepted. 本帖最后由 良药重口 于 2012-2-22 21:12 编辑
额。。。下手晚了
In this memo, the vice president recommend that the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which they used to choose for pest control services, would surely be a better choice in contrast with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company which they signed recently. However, the vice president does not provide convincing evidence for his argument. The memo is rife with unwarranted assumptions so that the vice president would fail to persuade the food distribution company to accept his proposal.
First, the vice president suggests that they should stop cooperating with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company because $20,000 worth of food at warehouse in Palm City had been destroyed by pest damage last month. The vice president assumes that the damage that occurred in Palm City is far worse than the damage happened in Wintervale. However, he lacks evidence to prove that. For example, it might turn out to be the case that the inflation and price-level might be much higher than that in Palm City. In that case, the difference between the damage in Palm City and that in Wintervale might seem much slighter, and the argument in the memo would be much weaker.
Second, we do not know the environmental differences between Palm City and Wintervale. It might surely weaken the argument if we have evidence that the warehouse store in Palm City lied on a place where pest damage is very common whereas the warehouse store in Wintervale lied on a place where pest damage is quite rare. In that situation, he contrast between the two cities might make no sense for supporting the vice president’s argument.
Furthermore, the mere fact that only $10,000 worth of the food stored in Wintervale had been destroyed by pest damage in Wintervale could not indicate that the Buzzoff Pest Control Company would provide superior pest control services at their warehouse. It might be the case that the warehouse in Wintervale is much modern, or that the food storage in that warehouse is much smaller than that in Palm City. The argument would be seriously weaker in that case. Even if it might be true that Buzzoff Pest Control Company do play an important role in controlling pest, we still lack evidence that our company could save money whereas the charge of the Buzzoff Pest Control Company remains unknown.
If we implement a more detail survey or have much more convincing evidence, it might be true that another pest control company might bring some advantages to us. Moreover, we could save money on a large amount of ways such as improving work efficiency and increasing serve quality. However, with those assumptions made by the vice president, the argument seems unconvincing for us to accept the appeal to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services 9# 良药重口
In this memo, the vice president recommend that the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which they used to choose for pest control services, would surely be a better(superior) choice in contrast with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company (which they signed recently)可以不要，句子有些累赘. However, the vice president does not provide convincing evidence for his argument. The memo is rife with unwarranted assumptions so that the vice president would fail to persuade the food distribution company to accept his proposal.（既提到evidence又提到assumption，没有体现文章的要求）
First, the vice president suggests that they should stop cooperating with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company because $20,000 worth of food at warehouse in Palm City(in the warehouse of Palm City) had been destroyed by pest damage last month. The vice president assumes that the damage that occurred in Palm City is far worse than the damage happened in Wintervale.（这个假设有点牵强） However, he lacks evidence to prove that. For example, it might turn out to be the case that the inflation and price-level （哪个地方的？）might be much higher than that in Palm City. In that case, the difference between the damage in Palm City and that in Wintervale might seem much slighter, and the argument in the memo would be much weaker.（整段理论都不够cogent，叙述比较繁复，说实话最后两句我都没明白你想表达啥。W通货膨胀率高，扣除通胀因素，那么实际W损失应该比P还要少，那不是反驳了你的观点？）
Second, we do not know the environmental differences between Palm City and Wintervale. It might surely(might和surely搭配不合理吧) weaken the argument if we have evidence（题目要求的是阐释assumption啊） that the warehouse store in Palm City lied on a place where pest damage is very common whereas the warehouse store in Wintervale lied on a place where pest damage is quite rare. In that situation, the contrast between the two cities might make no sense for supporting the vice president’s argument.
Furthermore, the mere fact that only $10,000 worth of the food stored in Wintervale had been destroyed by pest damage in Wintervale could not indicate that the Buzzoff Pest Control Company would provide superior pest control services at their warehouse. It might be the case that the warehouse in Wintervale is much more modern, or that the food storage in that warehouse is much smaller than that in Palm City. The argument would be seriously weaken in that case. Even if it might be true that Buzzoff Pest Control Company does play an important role in controlling pest, we still lack evidence that our company could save money whereas the charge of the Buzzoff Pest Control Company remains unknown.
If we implement a more detail survey or have much more convincing evidence, it might be true that another pest control company might bring some advantages to us. Moreover, we could save money on a large amount of ways such as improving work efficiency and increasing serve quality. However, with those assumptions made by the vice president, the argument seems unconvincing for us to accept the appeal to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services
1.切题严重不够，只有三段提到assumption，其他都在说evidence，题目要求是阐释作者assumption与这些assumption的作用
2.论证不够cogent，每段之间的逻辑联系不够
3.可以明显感觉出模板语言与非模板语言，要尽量减少两者差距 本帖最后由 asahi 于 2012-2-24 08:13 编辑
117 The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities.
"Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used for many years in Palm City, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
提纲
1,
20000 被虫子害了不能说是完全因为FA不好, 论据太单薄. 也许还有其它客观的原因
导致.
2,
指根据虫子,不能证明
B比A好.
3, 最好的省钱的方法未必是这个,换了以后也会有很多花费.
4, 所有的中心都用B, 也许有的不适当呢.
字数 416
In this memo, the vice president makes a contrast between Aly-Away and Nuzzoff Pest Control Company merely based upon one pest damage in different services centers, and concludes that the best means to save money is to return to Buzzoff for all their pest control services. Upon first glance, the assumption is reasonable, however, careful scrutiny of the author’s evidence reveals that it accomplishes little toward supporting His claim, as discussed below.
First, the less loss of the food which had been destroyed by pest damage cannot prove that Buzzoff provides better services than Aly-Away. The author ignores other possible factors, like bad whether condition, which may also lead to food being destroyed by pest damage. Perhaps in Palm City, they have been experiencing a long lasting annoying plum rains, which accelerates the propagation of pests, insects and other bacteria. Inevitably, most of the stored food, including in the warehouses, have been destroyed by pest damage. Thus, in this case, we cannot bare the conclusion that the pest damage is because of Aly-Away’s bad service. Moreover, there are many other aspects that are used to estimate the performance of a service provider. If Aly-Away offers excellent after-sale service like the examine of the pest damage system, or, say, other additional service like the maintenance of the warehouse, etc, we cannot judge that it is not a good service provider. It is unfair to make the conclusion just from the pest damage worth.
Second, the author claims that return to Buzzoff for all the pest control services is the best means of saving money. However, the author overlooks that other aspects that might spend more money. Since they have already made the contrast with Aly-Away, a termination of the service, which means to cancel the contrast, might take additional renege fees. How can we make sure that these fees will not exceed the loss by the pest damage? Thus, the author’s assumption is problematic.
Third, even if this is the mean to save money, the author’s claim that they should return to Buzzoff for all the pest control services is unwarranted. The good service performance in warehouse in Wintervale does not necessarily indicate that Buzzoff could offer the same good performance in other warehouses. In short, without ruling out other possible explanations for this conclusion, the author cannot reasonably conclude Buzzoff will be competent in all the other warehouses.
In sum, the vice president relies on a series of dubious assumptions, which render the conclusion wholly unpersuasive.
本帖最后由 asahi 于 2012-2-24 11:37 编辑
占楼改8楼同学。
修改处用/和红色标记，好的表达用蓝色标记。
The vice president of a food distribution companywith food storage warehouses in several cities argues here that the best way ofsaving money in/is to return to Buzzoff for all our/their(非直接引语，所以这里要换人称) pest controlservices. To support this argument the vice president points out that over$20,000 worth of food in the warehouse where the pest control services isprovided by Fly-Away had been destroyed by pest damage last month, while only$10,000 worth of food had been destroyed where the pest control services isprovided by Buzzoff at the same time. The argument, however, is rife with aseries of assumptions, and thus, is wholly unpersuasive. / 觉得这样更好，assumptions which are wholly unpersuasive. 原句模板味道比较重
Firstly, it is unfair to infer based solely onthe comparison between the worth of food destroyed by pest damage that Buzzoffdoes better work than Fly-Away.（根据全句，这里between改成by，这里若是between，后面需要有对比的内容，即between F and B） The inferencerelies on the poor assumption that the comparative quality of two company'sservices, rather than some other phenomenon, was responsible for thecomparative economic loss of the two warehouses. Perhaps the poor food packagingat the warehouse in Palm City or the breakout of pest damage at that time wasresponsible for the loss. For that matter, perhaps the food price at thewarehouse in Palm City is higher than that in Wintervale; thus, though thetotal value of destroyed food is higher, maybe the amount is lower than that inWintervale. In short, without showing that all other conditions in the twocities have been essential the same, the vice president cannot convince me that the quality of the two company's work was responsible for the difference in howmuch food had been destroyed by the pest damage.
这段的论证非常到位。
Secondly, the vice president's recommendation rests on the assumption that Buzzoff will do well in the pest control servicesof all warehouses. But the vice president presents no evidence to support hisassumption. Maybe Buzzoff cannot service well at some warehouses where the pest damage is special.
这一段也许可以再加一些例子来使论证更丰满些。
Finally, even if Buzzoff will do well in the pestcontrol services of all the warehouses, in claiming that to return to Buzzofffor all our/their control services is the best means of saving money the vicepresident assumes that the company has only two alternatives -- Fly-Away andBuzzoff, and there are no other ways to control pest. In all likelihood, thecompany can engage one of many other companies instead. To some extent, thus,the vice president recommends Buaaoff over not only Fly-Away but many any othercompanies,另起一句The/ the recommendation is unwarranted. On the other hand, perhaps manyother means can solve the pest damage which will cost less money, such asimproving the storage facilities.
The paragraph given merely scratches the surfaceof what must be evaluated about the pest control services in order to savingmoney. Much more work is needed by the food distribution company before therecommendation is accepted.
文章写的很不错，如果是在时间范围内完成的，那么就更好了。 本帖最后由 琼央 于 2012-2-24 12:15 编辑
6# greenbeanmeimei
In the memo, the vice president compares two pest control companies the food distribution company has signed contracts with and arrives at the conclusion that Buzz-off is better than Fly-Away in face of pest controlling. However, close scrutiny reveals that the recommendation suffers several unwarranted assumptions which make it really unconvincing.
Firstly, the president assumed irresponsibly that all the conditions in warehouses of Palm City are necessarily the same as that in Winter vale. However, storage warehouses might be quite different from each other. Perhaps Palm City's① warehouse is
much larger than the storage room mentioned in Buzz-off, say three times larger. The $20,000damage of food is thus no more money-consuming in comparison to $10,000 damage in Buzz-off on the same basis of cubic meters. Or perhaps due to the lack of mention in the memo of Winter vale 's location and what’s its warehouse is specifically used for, it is quite possible that food stored in Winter vale is more pest-resistant than the fast-food in Palm City due to②
weather conditions or the③ food’s own traits , Also, chances are that Buzz-off is only good④
at pest-controlling of this specific kind of food while not as proficient as Fly-Away in controlling pest-harassed fast food. All of the possibilities above might weaken the conclusion that Buzz-off is the better.
Assumption: p.c和w.v的病虫害防治条件是一样的（？）（还是p.c比w.v要的病虫防治糟得多？）
Argument: （p和w的损失程度可以比较且）p损失比w大
分析很给力，很详细也很有道理，同样的大家来找茬我指想到一个气候的理由捏，厉害厉害；
但是如果从要求来看的话，因为第一个要求提到“explain how the argument depends on these assumptions”，所以感觉第一句和后文的分析在连接上没有体现出来这个要求？而且如果把这句话作为一个assumption的话感觉像是偏了，像是自己的观点而不是作者的观点==我讲话很难懂==我的意思是这句话要放在implication就没有问题，可是放在第一句的话就好像是拿文中的话来，却取了话的引申义，所以这算不算是Your own opinion呢？
而且还有一个问题。因为文章第二个要求是“what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted”，即这些implications是针对argument的，即是主要攻击为什么p损失会比w大，而这段列出的四个理由中感觉既有攻击绿豆自己的assumption，又有攻击自己的argument，比较模糊；而如果说这四个论点都是攻击argument的话，那么第一句话是一定要换的，换成彻底的p.c比w.v的病虫防治要糟可能会比较好。这个和第一个问题是关联的，总之就是assumption和argument不分明的感觉==
至于要求具体提到的指出联系什么的==这种paraphrase我也没有办法给出很好的意见，因为我卡在这上面卡了很久==
Take a closer scrutiny, another unwarranted assumption underlies that needs further corroboration.
【In the memo, comparison is made only according to the recent single month pest controlling conditions between both cities; 】no warrant can be made to ensure Buzz-off 's better pest-controlling performance in the long run. It might turned out to be the least-worrying month for the Winter vale 's pest-controlling schedule while the most burdening period for Palm City. In this case, Palm City might save much more value of food compared to the $20,000 loss, which is only a small portion of the total potential damage, while Winter vale rescued only a little and lost the majority.
Assumption: b就是比f好
Argument:上个月的记录这么说
第一句是起过渡性质的场面话吧？红框中的应该是分析implications前的对已有argument和assumption的联系分析…感觉还是少了一句话？
这一段其实只有一个implication是针对president的argument的，就是上个月中p.c很惨，w.v很好，但是分析不到位，用的词least-worrying和most burdening都太模糊，没有具体的原因，所以说理像是对assumptiond的同义反复。如果可以有具体的原因，比如说自然灾害啊，人为xxoo因素等等就会比较有说服力。
Furthermore, the statement that the difference of $10,000 food damage between the two companies explains pest-controlling performance on the whole is another assumption made by the vice president that needs further details. Cases may be that service fees paid are much less to Fly-Away than to Palm City, perhaps $300,000 per year less, and this gap can surely offset the difference of $10,000 per month, which saves up to $180,000 per year when choosing Fly-Away. In addition, Fly-Away might offer better claiming services and loss-make-up programs that impede further damage to food while Buzz-off does not provide such specialties.
Assumption: f和b公司的服务质量优劣（如果是从给出memo看的话，会不会说f和b收费性价比谁好会比较好？）
Argument: f和b公司的损失差距
头一句话的“is another…further details”比较符合文章第一个要求，联系；
“cases”后面就是对argument的说理了，用了一个带具体数字的例子来攻击argument，而且后面的“in addition”还多给了一解释（补偿服务）,这一段的分析很好。
To sum up, the recommendation made by the vice president is rife with so many unwarranted assumptions mentioned above that we cannot assure that Buzz-off does better in money-saving than any other Pest Control companies in the years to come. Only with further survey and more data and details can we make a decision about which company is more likely to make profits in this food distribution company.
最后说一句，一个小时能写出来我觉得很了不起了，我根本就是一天都耗在这上面还写得狗x那样== 2# leijerry888
总用时1个半小时。。。汗啊。。。。刻意的写的简短了一些，413。希望得到大家的评价。
In this memo, the author gave a conclusion of returning to Buzzoff pest control company based on a seemly reliable comparison between the situations in Palm City and Wintervale. However, after precise evaluation of the evidences provided, there is no way we come to the author’s conclusion.
【首先vice president的结论是the best means of saving money to return to Buzzoff for our pest control services.你给楼掉了一半。标红的句子最好换下说法，there be句型少用为妙】
First, the merely comparison of values of food loses caused by pest damage between the two city is partial. By doing this comparison, the author simply assumed that there were no other factors which would affect the effects of loses of food caused by pest. 【可改为no other factors would affect the food loss caused by pest.】This assumption is untenable. For example, the surrounding pest environments of the two cities may be not the same. Maybe the pest control service provided by Fly-Away company in Palm City is more efficient. And the relatively【relative】 more lose【loss】
of food in Palm City is due to a much more serious pest incident.【这段表述微调更合适： perhaps the surrounding pest environments of the two cities is not the same. For example, the pest incident in Palm City is more serious than Wintervale, thus, though the food loss in Palm City is more serious than that in Wintervale, the services provided by Fly-Away company is more effective. 我觉得既然说assumption不可信，那首先要说原因，然后在举例具体说明】 Based on this situation, the author’s conclusion became unwarranted. In addition, a comparison with only one variable factor will be more reasonable. For instant, a comparison of effects of pest control between the two companies in the same city with the same pest and other environment valuables.【个人觉得这个建议不太合适，首先要确保无其他因素影响，除了你说的the same pest and other environment valuables以外，还有warehouse里的食品以及包装要一样，这个貌似比较难实现吧，公司不可能为了选择一个service去做这种大力气的事情。可以改一下，比如说对两地及仓库的情况作进一步的比较，比如食品及包装的差异，气候差异，综合考虑来做选择。】
Additionally, a one-month effect is too short to be reliable. We can definitely know that a longer cooperation between business partners provides a better result. There is no reason to blame a new partner of doing bad based on the standards fit for a static partner. Perhaps the newer company can better control the lose of food caused by pest if it has several more months to be familiar with the situation it deals with. So a tenable comparison should preclude effects like this and bases on static and reasonable data.
【这段意思明白，但觉得表达方式很怪，实在不知道怎么改，但是肯定需要修改的。。。】
Moreover, the author provided that Fly-Away company charged lower, but also assumed that it’s insufficient to make this company a better choice. However, without a more specific data of the charges and effects of these two companies, we can make no valuable judgment. A “considerably lower” charge proves nothing. What if the charge less company, after a whole consideration of all the factors such as charges, pest control profits, proves to be a more economic choice? Without more particular investigation of the two companies, a relatively small charge is more or less a useless evidence.
【这段读的不太明白了，题目中说的是虽然FA公司便宜，但是最好的选择还是B公司吧。可我怎么觉得你这段好像把题目理解反了呢？比如标红的部分。感觉你一直在攻击though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower但我觉得这个不是关键吧，关于结论最好攻击的还是那个the best means of saving money】
In conclusion, maybe it’s a good choice of returning to Buzzoff company. However, the assumptions made by the author are far from convincing. To make a responsible conclusion, more reliable evidences need to be provided.
【感觉表达还是需要自己琢磨，很多虽然意思明白，可读着感觉怪怪的；还有就是尽量减少there be句型吧，貌似大家都很喜欢用这种句型，但当时老师讲尽量少用~~~】
【我找出的三个assumption漏洞：
1和你一样；2 B公司在Wintervale做得好，在其他地方做的也会好；3 the best means of saving money，assume 没有其他公司可选，也没有其他的更好的防害虫的办法，这个显然不合理。】 本帖最后由 良药重口 于 2012-2-24 23:05 编辑
10# cinkie
In this argument, the arguer claims that for the purpose of economy, the company should return to Buzzoff Pest Control Company. In order to substantiate his proposition, the arguer cites that last month Fly-Away Pest Control Company lost more worth of food. The reason seems plausible at first glance, nevertheless, several details need to be checked before reaching this conclusion.(第一段写的不错啊)
First of all, the arguer rests on the assumption that the perished food in Fly-Away only results from pest damage, and thus Fly-Away is not a responsible pest control company. Nevertheless, this assumption is unwarranted as the arguer obliviate(建议直接用forget，貌似obliviate没有这个用法，建议查一下韦氏字典) several possibilities. It is entirely possible that the company unintentionally place the food that already had been damaged by pest, but in an undiscernible (indiscernible) way. After a month of storage, the food began to decay. And there is also a possibility that due to the rare pest spread over Palm City(rare pest容易引起歧义，你想表达罕见的害虫吧？但是rare pest容易被理解成pest 很稀少，毕竟考官不会特别认真地批改，最好rare前加一个a sort of 会更好一点), the company had tried their best to protect the food and the damage is relatively low compared with other companies. Without ruling out these circumstances, the arguer fails to reason his conclusion.
Even conceding that pest damage is the only reason for the lost, the arguer further assumes that their warehouses separately in Palm City and Wintervale have the same condition and are comparable. Common sense dictates that different locations have different situations, say weather, terrain, vegetation, etc. Chances are high that warehouse in Palm City is a better habitat for certain kinds of pests, and Wintervale is relatively a better place to store food. Also（in addition）, the two warehouses of the company may have different manage systems. It is possible that (the) warehouse in Wintervale has higher efficiency than in Palm City, and it facilitates the way for the pest control company to distribute their tasks.(这个漏洞论述的比我清楚多了，向你学习啊)
What is more, the arguer wrongfully assumes that returning to Buzzoff would definitely save money for the company. Only comparing the total figures of loss of the food, the arguer overlooks several essential factors. The mere fact that Fly-Away has more loss than Buzzoff in number could not convince the company that Buzzoff is better.（句子片段，第一个Buzzoff后加一个has就行了）. We have to know the specific proportion of the loss in the scale of entire food stored in each warehouse, and then evalute(evaluate) the relative loss. It is likly(likely) that Buzzoff has a higher proportion in loss and therefore disproves itself a responsible company. Even accepting the assumptions above, the arguer still could not be absolute confident about the economy. Since Buzzoff charges higher and has relatively better pest control services, it might require more pay for the cost of shifting its established strategies. And it is also possible that Buzzoff would be more smug and reject the company's demand.（例子可以举得更彻底一些，文章就会更充实了）
Saving the money of a company is undeniable important factor in business, the initial intuitive of the vice president is warranted. However, the arguer fails to convince us of the change of business as he/she makes several incomplete assumptions. To better bolster his conclusion, careful and specific conditions need to be evaluated and several indispensible(indispensable) factors have to be taken into accunt(account). While the argument does present us a concern, more information is required to justify the conclusion.
总体论证思路挺好的，只不过有些细节方面值得重视，
拼写方面的错误细心一点就好了，建议收集一下自己常打错的词汇
文章多次出现了一些Chinese English的句子，建议模仿一下范文，再添加自己的东西进去，写出一套自己的argument的模式
cinkie，奋勇向前，一起加油吧！
页:
[1]
2