argument117 G89 22日同主题

dennyaimarUID：191857

Argument117  第11篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：dennyaimar     共用时间：42分51秒     468 words
从2005年7月22日20时30分到2005年7月22日21时42分
------题目------
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.'
------提纲------
1.调查结果不能说明问题，可能不正确。
2.即使正确也不代表一定能够提高销量。
3.增加这些机器的存货不一定能带来盈利，即使盈利，也不代表会成为整个商店中盈利最多的部门。
------正文------
In this memo, the arguer asserts that the office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores should increase stock of home office machines and office supplies, in order to make the departments become the most profitable component of the stores. To substantiate this point, the arguer cites the results of a survey that over 70 percent of the respondents reported that they are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

First of all, the validity of the survey is open to doubt. The arguer does not assure that the respondents who took the survey represent all types of customers of the office facilities. Moreover, no evidence is provided to demonstrate the period, when the survey occurred, does not a seasonal time of a year. It is probable that only the employees of certain companies which offer more home works than normal ones. Or maybe the survey happened in the end of a year, when the employees have most things to do among the entire year. Either scenario would provide an alternative explanation for the result of the survey.

On the other hand, even if the result is proved to be available, it is hasty to assert that the sale volume of those machines and supplies will increase. Maybe all the people in this place use to working at home and have bought those facilities already. It is also equally possible that their companies allow them to take companies' machines to use at home. The increase of sale volume relies on many factors, and without knowing the detailed information of those potential customers, we cannot accept the arguer's assumption.

Finally, the argument asserts that the department should increase stock, which will make the department the most profitable component of the stores. Whether a department can be profitable depends on many causes, among which is the sale volume. More consumers come to buy the stock does not mean that it will bring more money to the department. The earnings of the facilities might be very little according to the high prices of them. Or only a small part of stock will be sell out, while more are still in warehouses. Even if the outcomes of the departments are very considerable, there might be some other departments to attain more proceeds.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer assumes. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should offer more details concerning the precise background of the survey. To better evaluate the argument, we need more clear information about the probable customers and the whole stores. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.

fantasianosUID：207837

In this memo, the arguer asserts that the office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores should increase stock of home office machines and office supplies, in order to make the departments become the most profitable component of the stores. To substantiate this point, the arguer cites the results of a survey that over 70 percent of the respondents reported that they are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows. 复述题目过于详细，如果第一句不能避免，那么第二句可以稍微粗略一点

First of all, the validity of the survey is open to doubt. The arguer does not assure that the respondents who took the survey represent all types of customers of the office facilities. Moreover, no evidence is provided to demonstrate the period, when the survey occurred, does is not a seasonal time of a year. It is probable that only the employees of certain companies which offer (are offered)去掉which，否则没有谓语 more home works than normal ones. Or maybe the survey happened in the end of a year, when the employees have most things to do among the entire year. Either scenario would provide an alternative explanation for the result of the survey.

On the other hand, even if the result is proved to be available, it is too hasty to assert that the sale volume of those machines and supplies will increase. Maybe all the people in this place use (are used) to working at home and have bought those facilities already. It is also 去掉also equally possible that their companies allow them to take companies' machines to use at home. The increase of sale volume relies on many factors, and without knowing the detailed information of those potential customers, we cannot accept the arguer's assumption.

Finally, the argument asserts that the department should increase stock, which will make the department the most profitable component of the stores. 可以不用复述这一句，有些累赘，且有堆砌字数之嫌 Whether a department can be profitable depends on many causes, among which is the sale volume and price这里就可以点出来了. That More consumers come to buy the stock does not mean that it will bring more money to the department. The earnings of the facilities might be very little according to the high prices of them. (,) Or only a small part of stock will be sell out, while more are still in warehouses. Even if the outcomes (incomes) of the departments are very considerable, there might be some other departments to attain more proceeds.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer assumes. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should offer more details concerning the precise background of the survey. To better evaluate the argument, we need more clear information about the probable customers and the whole stores. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.

总评：错误都找出来也论述了，但每段没有必要作过多的铺垫，更快地引出原因更好些，否则看半天都觉得没批到点子上