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."
In this argument, the author recommends that all Valu-Mart stores should increase the home office machines and supplies in order to make the office-supply departments become the most profitable component. To support the conclusion, the author cites the result of a recent survey that people take more at work home than they did in the past. The conclusion sounds reasonable. A careful examination, however, would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
To begin with, the whole argument’s basement is the result of a recent survey that over 70 percent of respondents report that they are required to take more work home with them form workplace. However, the result of the survey is problematic in several respects. Firstly, the author does not inform us how many people participate in the survey. If the number is small, then "70 percent of respondents" cannot be representative of most customers. In addition, we are not informed about whether the survey is conducted by authority and how did the survey select sample. Without these important and necessary evidences, I can not asses the reliance of the survey.
Next, given the result of the survey is reliable, the author unfairly assumes that the demands of office machines and supplies will increase. Two critical flaws are involved in the assumption. First of all, it is entirely possible that all the work of the people who are required to work at home are finished in internet, if so, the printers, copy machines and fax machines are not necessary to them. Meanwhile, taking more work at home and the amount of total work are different things. If the total amount of work dose not increase very much, the office-supply such as paper, pens, stapler does not increased either. Since the author ignores these possibilities, I cannot take the side with author.
Last but not least, even the sales of office-supply indeed increase, the author unfairly predicts that the office-supply department will be the most profitable of Valu-Mart stores. It is entirely possible that other departments have more profitable prospective than office-supply department. Without providing any evidences of the sales of other departments and an objective comparison between office-supply department and other departments, the author can not convince me.
In sum, the author's conclusion is poorly supported. To strengthen it, the author must confirm the reliance of the survey and provide more evidences to prove the demands of office supply will increase. Also, a comparison between office-supply and the rest departments of Valu-Mart is necessary.
WORD：415作者: happy_shirley 时间: 2006-1-5 10:37:23
In this argument, the author recommends that all Valu-Mart stores should increase the home office machines and supplies in order to make the office-supply departments become the most profitable component. To support the conclusion, the author cites the result of a recent survey that people take more at work home than they did in the past. The conclusion sounds reasonable. A careful examination, however, would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
开头挺简洁的不错！
To begin with, the whole argument’s basement is (argument is based on )the result of a recent survey that over 70 percent of respondents report that they are required to take more work home with them form workplace. However, the result of the survey is problematic in several respects. Firstly, the author does not inform us how many people participate in the survey. If the number is small, then "70 percent of respondents" cannot be representative of most customers. In addition, we are not informed about whether the survey is conducted by authority and how did the survey select sample. Without these important and necessary evidences, I can not :confused:asses the reliance of the survey.
Next, given even if 比较好 the result of the survey is reliable, the author unfairly assumes that the demands of office machines and supplies will increase. Two critical flaws are involved in the assumption. First of all, it is entirely possible that all the work of the people who are required to work at home are finished in internet, if so, the printers, copy machines and fax machines are not necessary to them. Meanwhile, taking more work at home and the amount of total work are different things. If the total amount of work dose not increase very much, the office-supply such as paper, pens, stapler does not increased either. Since the author ignores these possibilities, I cannot take the side with author.
第二个逻辑没有看懂。把东西带回去做的多了不就是工作量增加吗？:confused:
Last but not least, even the sales of office-supply indeed increase, the author unfairly predicts that the office-supply department will be the most profitable of Valu-Mart stores. It is entirely possible that other departments have more profitable prospective than office-supply department. Without providing any evidences of the sales of other departments and an objective comparison between office-supply department and other departments, the author can not convince me.
In sum, the author's conclusion is poorly supported. To strengthen it, the author must confirm the reliance of the survey and provide more evidences to prove the demands of office supply will increase. Also, a comparison of profit between office-supply and the rest departments of Valu-Mart is necessary.