[a习作temp] argument233 (hand-in-hand) [复制链接]

happypearl
UID: 206945

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1925
注册时间: 2005-4-24
精华: 5
帖子: 6

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-1-25 00:24:51 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 233 - The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country.

"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. Appian Roadways has recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery, and it has hired a new quality-control manager. Because of its superior work and commitment to quality, we should contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls."

提纲
1、两条路的交通量不同，不能比较
2、AR的machinery和新的经理不一定说明工作质量高
3、作者只是基于两条路的比较做出决定，可能MRB修的其他路都比AP好

In this argument, the vice president’s suggestion for the company to contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders is ungrounded. Because the analogy, which is used to present Appian’s superiority, between the roads constructed by the two companies is inappropriate and unconvincing. Besides, no evidence in the argument shows that Appian can do a better job than McAdam in constructing shopping mall’s access roads. I will explain the details as follows.

First of all, it is improper for the vice president to compare the current condition of Route 101 with Route 66 regardless of the possibility that their traffic loads could be quite different. Maybe Route 101 has busy traffic and heavy loads such as trucks during since its construction, thus making its surface badly cracked and marred by potholes. In contrast, Route 66 may have much less traffic in the past four years, which keeps it in good condition. Another possibility is that the government may have not keep maintenance work for Route 101, which results in its poor condition. Therefore, the current condition of the roads are not sufficient for the arguer to draw the conclusion that McAdam Road Builders do not provide high quality works.

Secondly, it is unnecessarily that Appian Roadways can provide superior work because of its purchase on state-of-the-art paving machinery and new quality-control manager. There is no evidence shows that McAdam Road Builders do not have state-of-the-art paving machinery. Besides, the new quality-control manager may not be familiar with the company and the city. This means that at the beginning of work, he or she could be inefficient in organizing the underlings and might make ill-conceived decisions that are not in accordance with the particular condition of the city. In this way, Appian Roadways is unlikely to do a better job than McAdam in road construction at the present stage.

In addition, it is too arbitrary for the vice president to believe that Appian rather than McAdam is the ideal choice for constructing access roads to shopping malls. The choice is based on merely one comparison of the roads constructed by the two companies. It is possible that other roads built by McAdam are in much better conditions than Appian's which assume similar traffic loads. Moreover, access roads to shopping malls are different from ordinary routes and need special techniques. May be McAdam is more suitable than Appian in constructing such roads because of its specialties.

In short, this argument is not well reasoned in that the vice president fails to provide sufficient evidence to show which construction company provides better quality in work. To form a stronger argument, the president should investigate into more roads built by the two companies and make sure that the company with higher quality work can also do a good job in building access roads to the shopping malls.

回应
0

使用道具举报

andrew_log
UID: 2143961

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 337
注册时间: 2005-10-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2006-1-25 23:26:02 |只看该作者

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 233 - The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country.

"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. Appian Roadways has recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery, and it has hired a new quality-control manager. Because of its superior work and commitment to quality, we should contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls."

提纲
1、两条路的交通量不同，不能比较
2、AR的machinery和新的经理不一定说明工作质量高
3、作者只是基于两条路的比较做出决定，可能MRB修的其他路都比AP好

In this argument, the vice president’s suggestion for the company to contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders is ungrounded. Because the analogy, which is used to present Appian’s superiority, between the roads constructed by the two companies is inappropriate and unconvincing. Besides, no evidence in the argument shows that Appian can do a better job than McAdam in constructing shopping mall’s access roads. I will explain the details as follows.

First of all, it is improper for the vice president to compare the current condition (a section) of Route 101 with Route 66 regardless of the possibility that their traffic loads could be quite different. Maybe Route 101 has busy traffic and heavy loads such as trucks during since its construction, thus making its surface badly cracked and marred by potholes. In contrast, Route 66 may have much less traffic in the past four years, which keeps it in good condition. Another possibility is that the government may have not keep maintenance work for Route 101, which results in its poor condition. Therefore, the current condition of the roads are not sufficient for the arguer to draw the conclusion that McAdam Road Builders do not provide high quality works.

Secondly, it is unnecessarily that Appian Roadways can provide superior work because of its purchase on state-of-the-art paving machinery and new quality-control manager. There is no evidence shows(showing) that McAdam Road Builders do not have state-of-the-art paving machinery. ( 什么意思?不理解) Besides, the new quality-control manager may not be familiar with the company and the city. This means that at the beginning of work, he or she could be inefficient in organizing the underlings and might make ill-conceived decisions that are not in accordance with the particular condition of the city. In this way, Appian Roadways is unlikely to do a better job than McAdam in road construction at the present stage.

In addition, it is too arbitrary for the vice president to believe that Appian rather than McAdam is the ideal choice for constructing access roads to shopping malls. The choice is based on merely one comparison of the roads constructed by the two companies. It is possible that other roads built by McAdam are in much better conditions than Appian's which assume similar traffic loads. Moreover, access roads to shopping malls are different from ordinary routes and need special techniques. May be McAdam is more suitable than Appian in constructing such roads because of its specialties.
(还可以说时间的问题,两条路都是几年前造的,不能代表现在的水平)

In short, this argument is not well reasoned in that the vice president fails to provide sufficient evidence to show which construction company provides better quality in work. To form a stronger argument, the president should investigate into more roads built by the two companies and make sure that the company with higher quality work can also do a good job in building access roads to the shopping malls.

[ 本帖最后由 andrew_log 于 2006-1-25 23:27 编辑 ]

使用道具举报