[a习作temp] argument 117, 多多指教，先谢谢了！ [复制链接]

糯米果儿
UID??2116563

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 21
注册时间: 2005-7-13
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-3 11:12:25 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

------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 the above argument, the conclusion that the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart stores is given by the arguer. Meanwhile, the arguer cited a result from a recent survey in order to prove that the demand of home office machines will increase. Furthermore, the arguer also pointed out that they will increase the stock of such office machines. Before I can accept this conclusion, a closer examination would reveal that there are several logic questions needed to have a profound discussion.

Firstly, given that the changes mentioned by the arguer will be successful, but it is still unknown to us how the profits will change. The common sense tells us that, the change of the profits is determined by two significant elements, one is the revenue, and the other is the costs. But in this argument, the conclusion bases on only one if these conditions. Even if the changes will success, the only thing these changes can bring to the office-supply departments is the increased revenue. I cannot find any situation of the costs. Thus, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the costs will also increased at the same time. And if the case is like that, the profits' change will be hard to predict.

Secondly, the reliability of the recent survey cited as evidence is worth to doubt whether the example is representative enough to reflect the general phenomenon. As a valuable survey, it must contain enough number of the participants, and it must ensure the process of sampling is operated at random. These two factors cannot be found in this argument. Furthermore, the arguer cited that there is 70 percent of the respondents reported the result. Although it is a high ratio, respondents may be the crowd of people who are interesting of this study, and thus we have good reason to doubt whether this result can stand for the real condition of all the people.

Thirdly, even though the employees have to take much more work home, there is no sufficient evidence to tell us that this situation means that the sales of home office machines in the Valu-Mart’s office-supply department will increase. On the one hand, it is possible that the cooperation that let their employees take the job home have given the necessaries to the employees, then the demand of such things, like the home office machines, will not increase. This case is absolutely possible, but the arguer ignores this aspect. On the other hand, even if the demand will increase, it does not mean that the sales of Valu-Mart’s office-supply departments will increase. For example, there is another store, whose price is much lower than Valu-Mart’s. When the people need purchase some office machines, of course, they will choose the other store, not the Valu-Mart stores.

In summary, this argument is weak. To improve it, the arguer should consider about the situation of the costs before give the conclusion. And what is more, the arguer should provide much more convincing evidence to illustrate that it is true that the need of home office machines will increased.

[ Last edited by 糯米果儿 on 2005-8-3 at 11:22 ]