[a习作temp] argument179 [漫漫征途作文小组] 限时模考N篇后，崩溃 [复制链接]

jennyzhe
UID：165924

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 5
寄托币: 456
注册时间: 2004-6-2
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-3-19 23:30:39 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument 179The following is a memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation.
"It would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee cafeteria next year. It is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience 'unbearable.' Our company should instead hire Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned local company and it offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. I recently tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount serves and it was delicious—an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction."
Time:00:30:00 Words:395 Date：2007-3-19

In this argument, the arguer intends to convince us that Discount Foods would be a better choice for Cedar Corporation. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the complaint of three employees. Furthermore, the arguer makes a comparison between Good-Taste Company and Discount Foods. Finally, the arguer mentions the experience of himself to support the assertion. At first glance, the suggestion seems reasonable. But a careful exam would reveal Discount Foods may not be a good choice.

At first, three complains last month is not representative enough. The arguer only mentions that the employees found the experience 'unbearable' but fails to provide details. Perhaps the complaints are focused on the dirty condition of the cafeteria where no janitors sweeping the floor. Or perhaps the cafeteria lacks air conditions, which makes people feel uncomfortable when sitting and eating there. All these do not caused by the fault of Good-taste Company.

Secondly, the comparison between two companies is also incomplete. The arguer mentions that Discount Foods are better than Good-taste Company by offering a varied menu of fish and poultry. However, Good-taste Company may also offer these two kinds of food. And as mentioned in the article, the Good-taste has raised their charge for last three years, but the total fee of both Good taste and Discount Foods is not illustrated. If Good-taste Company charges 30,000 a year with more than ten kinds of food, and Discount Foods charges 40,000 a year but only fish and poultry. It is unreasonable to simply conclude that Discount Foods is a optimal substitution.

Moreover, the arguer says that he tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount Serves. This evidence is also not strong enough to support the conclusion. First of all, one sample lunch can not entirely represent quality of a whole food company. Success in one company will not ensure the same triumph in other firms. Secondly, the food fitting the taste of the author does not necessarily meet the taste of the whole company. As a common sense, different people have multiple tastes. Some may prefer eat bread at lunch. Others may prefer hotdog at lunch.

In sum, the argument suffers some logic flaws. If the arguer provides more details about the complaints and make more integral comparison between two companies, as well as cites additional evidences, the article will be more convincing.