[a习作temp] ARGUMENT179, 感觉同北美范文写得思路不太一样，感觉更加全面一些 [复制链接]

TMACJAMES
UID: 2836445

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 2
寄托币: 678
注册时间: 2010-6-17
精华: 0
帖子: 3

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-8-11 14:21:45 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT179 - The 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."
WORDS: 558
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 8/11/2010 11:38:44 AM

The author expresses the opinion that the company should replace its current food supplier from Good-Taste Company to Discount, which will eventually lead to improved employee satisfaction. And the author combines his own tasting experience and three employees' complaints to make the argument more persuasive. And superficially, it is pretty cogent that the company should conduct the change. However, within the ratiocination, there are certain puzzles, or flaws frankly speaking, that jeopardize the whole conclusion.

The Good-Taste Company's performance seems really awful comparing with the Discount. Yet besides its price, the author provides little knowledge about the company in other aspects, such as the reason why it is the second most expensive caterer and why it keeps rising price in last three years. As we know, one of the most important condition for a cater servicer should be its hygiene condition, which is missed by the author. So it leaves room for us to think that whether it is possible that the company devotes much of its resource and energy in maintaining a high hygiene standard, and due to the material reason that the company has to rise its price to keep in the high level. Although Discount seems to be a nice caterer, it is a family-owned local company after all, which contains many disadvantages comparing with a big and financial-plenty company as the Good-Taste, including the hygiene standard.

Besides the sanitary conditions, the food quality of those two companies remains blurring in my point of view. It might be true that the Good-Taste does not provide special diets while the Discount offers a varied menu of fish and poultry, I cannot find the latter one competitive. Firstly, the author fails to mention that if his company entails some special diets, if there is no need, then such problem would not be a problem anymore. Second, even though there are three employees complaining about the cafeteria, they only refer to the "experience", which may or may not include the food quality. Even we accept that they are grumbling about the food, there are only three people, with the unknown total number of the whole company. I can hardly find them as representative. As for the Discount, the menu of fish and poultry does not necessarily denote providing special diets or good quality of food. And the author's personal experience can only speak for himself, but no one else.

Finally, the author's conclusion includes the improvement of employee's satisfaction, while it is a brusque question that comes from nowhere. Throughout the passage, the author only alludes to the satisfaction problem in three employee's complaints about cafeteria. So we do not know whether it is a prevalent problem or an isolated case. Moreover, even if there is a problem of employee's satisfaction, the root of it could be in other aspects such as the salary, working condition or office hours, instead of food problem. Therefore, without clear information, we cannot reach the author's conclusion.

All in all, the author makes an ostensibly well-organized induction about shifting the caterer and enhancing the employee satisfaction, but fails to provide all the specifics entailed to back the conclusion up. Thereby, such conclusion is invalid and precarious. In order to support the argument, the author needs to hand in more details about those two caterers as well as the current situation of his own company.