argument117 求互拍，这片频率挺高的

G10T5UID: 2101393

限时太痛苦了，总是写不完。

Argument117  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：41分17秒     505 words
从2005年7月6日20时28分到2005年7月6日21时41分
------题目------
The following is a memo from the business manager of Valu-Mart stores.
'Over 70 percent of the respondents to a recent survey reported that they are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past. Since Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply departments in the past, we should take advantage of this work-at-home trend by increasing at all Valu-Mart stores the stock of home office machines such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines. We will also increase stock of office supplies such as paper, pens, and staplers. With these changes, our office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of our stores.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer suggests that through increasing stock of home office machines and office supplies, the office-supply departments of Value-Mart stores will become the most profitable component. To support this assertion, the arguer cites a recent survey that over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than before. At the first glance, this argument seems to be reasonable. But several critical logical errors render it unconvincing.

First of all, from the survey cited by the arguer as strong evidence we only know that people are forced to take more work home. But instead of providing some clear and sound evidence to prove that this phenomenon would surely lead to greater sale of home office machines and office supplies, the arguer simply straightly declare that. In fact, between them there is no strict casual relationship. Although more work would be accomplished at home, people may still use official machines in their offices rather than at home. They could only bring printed documents to home. And they may only take electronic documents to offices and then use printers in there, although these documents are written at home. Under such circumstance, they would not purchase another printer for their work at home. Other devices, such as small copy machines, paper shredders and fax machines may also be unnecessary. Moreover, if people only do their work on computer, then the requirements of paper, pens and staplers can be also avoided. So just from the survey, the arguer cannot conclude that the sale of these home office machines and office supplies must increase.

In addition, even the survey itself also has some logical problems. The arguer fails to provide an answer to whether the survey is representative. The argument only illustrates that over 70 percent of the respondents claim that they should do more work at home than before. But is the group of investigated people large enough? Or are these respondents chosen randomly? The answers to these two questions are essential to that survey's correctness and representation. Unfortunately, the arguer does not provide any related information.

What' more, granted that the survey is correct and representative and people would purchase many home office machines and office supplies, we also cannot get the conclusion that the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart stores. Which is the real reason behind office-supply departments' impressive sales? Are there other factors that contribute to their failure? Without careful analysis, the arguer unfairly reduces its failure to the lack of market. It is highly possible that the market condition of office supplies is always good, but the poor quality of products or the bad serving attitude has impeded sales of Valu-Mart stores' office-supply departments. Moreover, how about other departments sales? Maybe even though the office-supply departments' sale has increased greatly, it still cannot surpass other departments' achievements.

In sum, the arguer's assertion is unwarranted. Further careful and objective investigation and analysis are required before the arguer propose an efficient and practical suggestion to improve Valu-Mart stores' office-supply departments' sale.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-6 at 22:44 ]

alcestisUID: 2101945

In this argument, the arguer suggests that through increasing stock of home office machines and office supplies, the office-supply departments of Value-Mart stores will become the most profitable component. To support this assertion, the arguer cites a recent survey that over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than before. At the first glance, this argument seems to be reasonable. But several critical logical errors render it unconvincing.

First of all, from the survey cited by the arguer as strong evidence we only know that people are forced to take more work home. But instead of providing some clear and sound evidence to prove that this phenomenon would surely lead to greater sale of home office machines and office supplies, the arguer simply straightly declare that. In fact, between them there is no strict casual relationship. Although more work would be accomplished at home, people may still use official machines in their offices rather than at home. They could only bring printed documents to home. And they may only take electronic documents to offices and then use printers in there, although these documents are written at home. Under such circumstance, they would not purchase another printer for their work at home. Other devices, such as small copy machines, paper shredders and fax machines may also be unnecessary. Moreover, if people only do their work on computer, then the requirements of paper, pens and staplers can be also avoided. So just from the survey, the arguer cannot conclude that the sale of these home office machines and office supplies must increase.

In addition, even the survey itself also has some logical problems. The arguer fails to provide an answer to whether the survey is representative. The argument only illustrates that over 70 percent of the respondents claim that they should do more work at home than before. But is the group of investigated people large enough? Or are these respondents chosen randomly? The answers to these two questions are essential to that survey's correctness and representation. Unfortunately, the arguer does not provide any related information. 在逻辑上，承认survey有效性是分析survey结果的基础，这一段可考虑放在上一段的钱面， 然后用让步引出下一段：就算这个survey有效我们要怀疑他的结果，是否在家干活多就一定多买办公用品 或者在有话可说的题目中可以考虑不批survey有效性或者少批，因为这个点比较俗 谁都会写

What' more, granted that the survey is correct and representative and people would purchase many home office machines and office supplies, we also cannot get the conclusion that the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart stores. Which is the real reason behind office-supply departments' impressive sales? Are there other factors that contribute to their failure? Without careful analysis, the arguer unfairly reduces its failure to the lack of market.这句考虑调到段末或在段末另加一句总结 这样使人对你的观点有更鲜明的印象 It is highly possible that the market condition of office supplies is always good, but the poor quality of products or the bad serving attitude has impeded sales of Valu-Mart stores' office-supply departments. Moreover, how about other departments sales? Maybe even though the office-supply departments' sale has increased greatly, it still cannot surpass other departments' achievements.

In sum, the arguer's assertion is unwarranted. Further careful and objective investigation and analysis are required before the arguer propose an efficient and practical suggestion to improve Valu-Mart stores' office-supply departments' sale.

如果可能要避免模版化阿

沙迦UID: 205632

In this argument, the arguer suggests that through increasing前面因该加the或 their stock of home office machines and office supplies, the office-supply departments of Value-Mart stores will become the most profitablecomponent单复数要对应啊. To support this assertion, the arguer cites a recent survey that over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than before. At the first glance, this argument seems to be reasonable. But several critical logical errors render it unconvincing.

First of all, from the survey cited by the arguer as strong evidence we only know that people are forced to take more work home. But instead of providing some clear and sound evidence to prove that this phenomenon would surely lead to greater sale of home office machines and office supplies, the arguer simply straightly declare that这一句有些头重脚轻，换个句式吧. In fact, between them there is no strict casual relationship. Although more work would be accomplished at home, people may still use official machines in their offices rather than at home. They could only bring printed documents to home. And they may only take electronic documents to offices and then use printers in there, although these documents are written at home. Under such circumstance, they would not purchase another printer for their work at home. Other devices, such as small copy machines, paper shredders and fax machines may also be unnecessary. Moreover, if people only do their work on computer, then the requirements of paper, pens and staplers can be also avoided. So just from the survey, the arguer cannot conclude that the sale of these home office machines and office supplies must increase.

In addition, even the survey itself also has some logical problems单复数不对应. The arguer fails to provide an answer to whether the survey is representative. The argument only illustrates that over 70 percent of the respondents claim that they should do more work at home than before. But is the group of investigated people large enough? Or are these respondents chosen randomly? The answers to these two questions are essential to that survey's correctness and representation. Unfortunately, the arguer does not provide any related information.

What'少了个s more, granted that the survey is correct and representative and people would purchase many home office machines and office supplies, we also cannot get the conclusion that the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component单复数对应 of Valu-Mart stores. Which is the real reason behind office-supply departments' impressive sales? Are there other factors that contribute to their failure? Without careful analysis, the arguer unfairly reduces its failure to the lack of market. It is highly用entirely更好一点吧 possible that the market condition of office supplies is always good, but the poor quality of products or the bad serving attitude has impeded sales of Valu-Mart stores' office-supply departments. Moreover, how about other departments sales? Maybe even though the office-supply departments' sale has increased greatly, it still cannot surpass other departments' achievements.

In sum, the arguer's assertion is unwarranted. Further careful and objective investigation and analysis are required before the arguer propose an efficient and practical suggestion to improve Valu-Mart stores' office-supply departments' sale.

本文对短文中的错误基本都找出来了，除了第二段有一点逻辑混乱和犯了一些低级错误以外，第三第四段都论证的不错，特别是作者的设问句用的恰如其分，但继续挖掘论证的内容深度，就会更好:victory:
欢迎互拍，砸砖头噢:handshake，Argument117