[a习作temp] Argument41 第9次argu 我哭呀！~~~ [复制链接]

Ribby
UID: 2307433

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 589
注册时间: 2007-2-28
精华: 0
帖子: 3

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-7 23:55:53 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT41 - 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 Company for all our pest-control services."
WORDS: 341 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2007-4-7

In this argument, the vice president recommends that although it will cost more, the food-distribution company should return to Buzzoff Company for all their pest-control service in order to save money. To support the argument the arguer cites that over $20,000 worth of food in P City had been destroyed because they were provided the service of Flay-Away Pest-Control Company. However, the food in Wintervale where they continued the service of Buzzoff Pest-Control was destroyed only for $10,000. The argument is unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the argument suffers from a false analogy between warehouses in P and W. No information is provided that the two warehouses are in same conditions such as the kinds of the foods in warehouses. It is entirely possible that the warehouse in P is much bigger than the one in W. Because the food stored in P is more and therefore even the service of F Company is better, food which damaged in P will also more than W-city. Or perhaps the food stored in P is much expansive than W, and that is to say, maybe more food are destroyed in W but they does not cost a lot.

What is more, the arguer is too hasty to make the conclusion that to return to B Company for all their pest-control service will save money. The arguer fails to consider that maybe B-company is not suitable to provide the service in P-city. Different areas may caused different kind of pest. And when they return to B-company to provide the service, their service may not meet the need of the warehouse in P and therefore food damage may even sever than before. The cost will even greater.

Last but not least, the price charge should also be took account when making the conclusion about which company will help to save money. If the additional charge of B company will even more than the cost of the damage food in P, the changing will still be an unwise one. Furthermore, the arguer fails to consider many other factors to save money, such as recycling method used in technology, more efficient way to store food and so on. Thus, the conclusion is unwarranted as it stands.