[a习作temp] argument117 ,欢迎来拍！！ [复制链接]

eddie23508ok
UID：2281260

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 3
寄托币: 1338
注册时间: 2006-12-8
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-3 22:54:31 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

117.The following is a memo from the business manager of Valu-Mart stores.

"Over 70 percent of the respondents to a recent survey reported that they are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the
past. Since Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply departments in the past, we should take advantage of this work-at-home trend by increasing at all Valu-Mart stores the stock of home office machines such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines. We will also increase stock of office supplies such as paper, pens, and staplers. With these changes, our office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of our stores."

最近一次调查超过70％的回应者报告说他们被要求回家完成的工作量比以前多。由于Valu-Mart在过去并没有发现办公用品部销量的显著上升，我们应该利用这种在家办公的趋势，在所有Valu-Mart商店增加家庭办公机器比如打印机、小型复印机、碎纸机和传真机的存货。我们也将增加办公用品比如纸笔和钉书机的存货。通过这些变革，我们办公用品部将会成为我们商店中盈利最多的部门。

The editorial concludes that with the increasing work-at-home trend, the office-supply department will be most profitable among the departments
of our stores. To support this conclusion, the editorial points out that people get more and more homework to do than ever before and home
office machines and other office supplies such as papers, pens and staplers will be sold well. However, the editorial relies on a number of doubtful
assumptions and is therefore unconvincing.

First of all ,the increasing trend that more and more people take homework to do at home does not stand for a large need of the home office
supplies. The argument above does not show us any information about what kinds of homework more and more people bring home. If works
taken home do not need any office supplies, people do not necessarily buy any office supplies from the department. And the evidence provided
by the author can still not exclude the possibility that people working at home own their office facilities. So the evidence fails to lend any support to the arguments about the necessity for people to buy office supplies.

Another problem with the argument is that the author fails to take other business competing rivals in the markets. Assuming that people's need for the office facilities is largely increasing, how can the editorial still asserts that consumers will buy any of office supplies from the department
mentioned above when other office facilities suppliers offer goods with much better quality and service. And the argument does not show us any
information about the prices of their goods and whether most of the customers can afford to buy them. So without the information about that
how the quality and service provided by the department refered to in the argument ,I can hardly lend any of my agreement to the authors
assertion.

What's more, the survey taken by the arguments lacks of credibility. Because we do not know that what the respondents do, if most of
respondents in the survey just occupy a very small proportion among all working people while most of whom did not be investigated in the survey. And the author also fail to show that the investigating method taken by the survey is scientific. Lacking of further solidified evidence, the survey
takes not any responsibility to support the argument.

Finally, the conclusion that the office-supply department will surely become the most profitable component stores is pretty presumptuous. Because the selling action does not include the office-supply department only, it involves all departments of our stores, for example, the advertising
department will make careful and attractive advertisements for the selling, and the selling department will be responsible to send salesman with
satisfying service attitude to sell their goods and so on.

In conclusion, the editorial is so unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the editorial's author must provide evidence that whether
most people really need to buy office facilities and whether the survey is representative. In order to better evaluate the argument, we would need
more information about whether there are other opponents in the market and what kind of service the department provide to consumers and whether it is competitive enough to prevail in the market by assuming that people eagerly hope to buy office facilities home.

[ 本帖最后由 eddie23508ok 于 2007-4-3 22:56 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

Prudence
UID：2286952

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 704
注册时间: 2006-12-26
精华: 0
帖子: 31

沙发

发表于 2007-4-4 22:37:37 |只看该作者

很不错啊，这一篇，加油！！！

最近一次调查超过70％的回应者报告说他们被要求回家完成的工作量比以前多。由于Valu-Mart在过去并没有发现办公用品部销量的显著上升，我们应该利用这种在家办公的趋势，在所有Valu-Mart商店增加家庭办公机器比如打印机、小型复印机、碎纸机和传真机的存货。我们也将增加办公用品比如纸笔和钉书机的存货。通过这些变革，我们办公用品部将会成为我们商店中盈利最多的部门。

The editorial concludes that with the increasing work-at-home trend, the office-supply department will be most profitable among the departments of our stores. To support this conclusion, the editorial points out that people get more and more homework to do than ever before and home office machines and other office supplies such as papers, pens and staplers will be sold well. However, the editorial relies on a number of doubtful assumptions and is therefore unconvincing.

First of all ,the increasing trend that more and more people take homework to do at home does not stand for(我常用的，但现在也感觉怪怪的了，改成mean吧) a large need of the home office supplies. The argument above does not show us any information about what kinds of homework more and more people bring home. If works taken home do not need any office supplies, people do not necessarily buy any office supplies from the department（还可以说的再仔细一点，举一个工作的例子）. And the evidence provided by the author can still not exclude the possibility that people working at home own their office facilities. So the evidence fails to lend any support to the arguments about the necessity for people to buy office supplies.
有这个趋势，人家未必会买吧？
Another problem with the argument is that the author fails to take other business competing rivals in the markets. Assuming that people's need for the office facilities is largely increasing, how can the editorial still asserts that consumers will buy any of office supplies from the department mentioned above when other office facilities suppliers offer goods with much better quality and service. And the argument does not show us any information about the prices of their goods and whether most of the customers can afford to buy them. So without the information about that how the quality and service provided by the department referred to in the argument, I can hardly lend any of my agreement to the author’s assertion.（这一点我没有想到）没有考虑竞争对手
What's more,（学习了） the survey taken by the arguments lacks of credibility. Because we do not know that what the respondents do, if most of respondents in the survey just occupy a very small proportion among all working people while most of whom did not be investigated in the survey. And the author also fails to show that the investigating method taken by the survey is scientific. Lacking of further solidified evidence, the survey takes not any responsibility to support the argument.
调查不可靠，这里可以这样批：被调查的人多少？500 回答的人多少？50 那调查就没用，再说有没有代表性？是不是局限到一个工厂了？Finally, the conclusion that the office-supply department will surely become the most profitable component stores is pretty presumptuous. Because the selling action does not include the office-supply department only, it involves all departments of our stores, for example, the advertising department will make careful and attractive advertisements for the selling, and the selling department will be responsible to send salesman with satisfying service attitude to sell their goods and so on.
未必盈利
In conclusion, the editorial is so unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the editorial's author must provide evidence that whether most people really need to buy office facilities and whether the survey is representative. In order to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about whether there are other opponents in the market and what kind of service the department providesto consumers and whether it is competitive enough to prevail in the market by assuming that people eagerly hope to buy office facilities home.
感觉很不错！加油！！！
建议：把攻击的顺序里一下，有逻辑一点比较好。

[ 本帖最后由 Prudence 于 2007-4-4 22:40 编辑 ]

Love you with the love of Christ...

使用道具举报