[a习作temp] 第一次写作文 argument233 求打击 求指导！！谢谢大家了！！！ [复制链接]

itle：ARGUMENT233 - 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."

下面是我自己写的 我第一次写作文 写了好多 不知道哪里写的应该删减 或者逻辑有误的地方 请大家帮忙看一下啦~~我马上就要考作文了 一团糟啊！！！跪谢 跪谢ing
In this memo, the vice president of a company, a company builds shopping malls throughout the country, recommends cooperating
with Appian Roadway rather than McAdam to construct all their access roads of the new shopping malls for their outstanding work and superior quality. To support this sensible choice the president mentions the different situations of Route 101 and Route 66 paved
respectively
by Appian and McAdam Road Builders. Also, the president points out the Appian’s new purchase of state-of-the-art paving machine and their new hire of a quality-control manager. However, close scrutiny of all these evidences reveal that they lend little credible support to the president’s recommendation.
The dominant problem of the recommendation relies on numerous unpersuasive assumptions about the different situations about Route 101 and Route 66. One such assumption is that the serious cracking and the dangerous potholes of Route 101, paved by McAdam, are ascribe to the poor quality of this Road Builder. Equally, the good condition of Route 66 paved by Appian certifies their excellent quality. Yet, logic and common sense inform me one or some other factors might also attribute to the results. Perhaps the weather condition in Route 101 is pretty bad. The existence of acid rain serves to decay the road, in turn having crack and potholes more easily. Perhaps the vehicles running on this road are usually overloaded. Prolonged suffering of overload makes the road more
vulnerable than any other roads. On the contrary, the Route 66 is probably just a sightseeing road. The weather here is fine and no overloaded cars run on this road.

In short, without considering and ruling out alternative explanations for the different situations of these two Routes, the president cannot justifiably convince me that Appian possesses a better quality, let alone we should choose Appian as our cooperate partners.
Even if the Route 101 is actually worse than Route 66, the statistical reliability is questionable. Only two routes might constitute an insufficiently small sample to draw any reliable conclusion about how good quality of each Road Builder. The more roads paved by each Road Builder compared to the sample of one road, the less reliable the different result. One road’s fault cannot present the whole company fault. Equally, we cannot infer inconsiderably the Appian possess a superior quality and work. Lacking assurances that the 2 roads are statistically characterization of all roads, the president cannot draw any convincing conclusions based on these two routes.
Aside from the two routes, the president also mentions the new behaviors of purchasing and hiring to support his or her own recommendation. Nevertheless, without considering the McAdam’s paving machinery’s competence and the ability of Appian’s new quality-control manager, all his or her conclusion is unwarranted. It is entirely possible that the paving machinery owned by McAdam is better than Appeal. The roads paved by this machinery are usually of stable quality, even better than the roads paved by McAdam’s new seeming outstanding machinery. As for the new manager, the president has not shown any evidence to substantiate his ability is awesome, perhaps because of his short of experience and his adaption to this new job, the manager actually makes no great attribution to improve the quality of the company.
Finally, granted that Appian’s work and quality really superior McAdam Road Builder. The president also fails to consider other possible Road Builders. Perhaps one or more other companies would be even more suitable for this mission regardless of the Appian’s outstanding work and quality. Without addressing this possibility, the president still cannot ensure to believe that we should contrast with Appian.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To persuade me that Appian is the best company for this mission. The president must provide clear and sufficient evidence to justify Appian’s good work and quality, and I would also need to know the real ability of both the new paving machinery and the new quality manager. Finally, to bolster his or her recommendation I would also need to make a clear comparison of the competences of the Appian’s and other possible Road Builder.