[a习作temp] Argument 78 施用农药决策，来个大神拍拍我吧！！ [复制链接]

zhj0735
UID: 2561218

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 3
寄托币: 671
注册时间: 2008-10-20
精华: 0
帖子: 94

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2012-5-13 16:14:23 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument 78
The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities.

Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used for many years, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services.”

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

提纲：
1、Fly-Away 上月的绩效不能否定它以往的效果。并且这一数据是否准确，是否有出处、是否可靠值得怀疑。
2、Buzzoff 在Wintervale的效果，由于气候和地理位置以及养殖的产品不一样，所以拿来比较不合适；
3、价值来衡量不能表现粮食的损失量，是maple还是fruit?作为Maple，价格便宜，损失金额少，不代表损失的产量少。没准因为损失质量大，效果不好。

The official judgment of alternation of Fly-Away Pest Control Company (F) by Buzzoff Pest Control Company (B) based on the statement from data displayed and price comparison seemed arbitrary, both from the reliability of the data resources and results comparability.

From the information available, the only data cited here did not illustrate the detailed references concerning their performance. More specific information should have been indicated to expound how the loss of food was counted and where was the severest victim of crops' financial loss. It demonstrated that, even if the data were reliable, Palm City suffered a $20,000 worth of food destroyed by pests in the last month, disregarding of past performance of F at least the period of over half year or one year. This would mislead the auditor if F did a consistent and conspicuous job as pesticides in the Palm City, where the reader may wonder how did F reacted on the pest for last few months.

While compared with Buzzoff's function that the memo mentioned only $10,000 worth loss in Wintervale, this conclusion would be posed with a question about the comparability of the two pesticides. Figuring out Palm and Wintervale cities would not differ in climate patterns, crop species, geographic structure, or any other distinctive should be provided since they could disturb the final result of food outgrowths. Suppose the weather last month was outlandish, with adequate precipitation, the immune system worked so well that crops themselves nurtured the ability to fight against the pest, subordinated the B pesticides.

More unfathomable was the criteria of financial loss imposed on the food loss. When we mentioned the food loss, the mass or volume would be summed up to illustrate the condition. It was due to market price that made the price loss more equivocal that a considerably lower loss may indicate substantial mass loss for cheaper products. In this way, Buzzoff would not stand for a fine effect on the ground that average price of the food was not given in the memo.

To sum up, the argument would not convince the public that F did worse than B in pest control. To depreciate F, evidences of data reference and their reliability should have been specified. To better evaluate the performance, we need to know the patterns of climate, crop type and geography have no influence on the outgrowth. When the target crops have the similar market value based on the same units of mass or volume.