argument4 请猛拍！（小木战队）

木紫000UID：2125809

Argument 4
The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site.
"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town---Adams Realty and Fitch Realty---Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."

Merely based on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence,the arguer conclude that the home will be sold quickly and at a good price if the home-owner use Adams. To support this conclusion the author points out the number and working hours of the firms’ agents, and the number and sales prices of homes sold by the two firms. The author also cites anecdotal evidence involving his/her own experience with Fitch and Adams. Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little credible support for the author's assertion.

First, the author provides no evidence that the quality of a real-estate firm is directly proportional to the number of its agents or the number of hours per week that its agents work. The author bases his/her claim partly on the fact that Adams has more agents than Fitch, and  many of Fitch's agents work only part-time. However, the author does not provide any information about how many Adams part-time agents work.Lacking such evidence, the author cannot defend the conclusion that Adams is superior to Fitch since it is equally possible that a smaller firm is more effective than a larger one, and that a part-time agent is more effective than a full-time agent.

Secondly, the author overlooks the possibility that last year's sales volume amounted to an aberration, and that in most other years Adams has actually sold fewer properties than Fitch. Moreover, the differentia in sales volume can be explained by factors other than the comparative quality of the two firms. Perhaps Adams serves an area where turnover in home-ownership is higher for reasons irrelevant to Adams' effectiveness. Or perhaps sales volume is higher at Adams simply because its more agents, and each Adams agent actually sells fewer homes on average than each Fitch agent does. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the differentia in sales volume, the author cannot defend the conclusion that Adams is superior to Fitch.

Thirdly ,in further support of his/her claim the author points out that the average sales price of a home sold by Adams is greater than that of Fitch. However, this evidence shows only that the homes that Adams sells are more valuable on average than the ones that Fitch sells, not that Adams is more effective in selling homes than Fitch. Moreover, it is possible that a few relatively high-priced or low-priced properties skewed these averages, rendering any conclusion about the comparative quality of the two firms based on these averages unfair.The author cannot rely on this limited evidence to support his/her claim.


In summary, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer concludes. To strenthen that Adams is better than Fitch, the author would need to provide clear evidence that individual Adams agents are more effective in selling homes than individual Fitch agents, and that the diffenentia in home sales and sales price is attributable to that difference.It would be also better that if the arguer gives more information about the comparative attractiveness of the arguer's two homes, and the extent to which the residential real-estate market changed during the decade between the sale of these two homes.

jclUID：2133003

我先抢个沙发坐坐

Argument 4
The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site.
"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town---Adams Realty and Fitch Realty---Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."

Merely based on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence,the arguer conclude that the home will be sold quickly and at a good price if the home-owner use Adams. To support this conclusion the author points out the number and working hours of the firms’ agents, and the number and sales prices of homes sold by the two firms. The author also cites anecdotal evidence involving his/her own experience with Fitch and Adams. Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little credible support for the author's assertion.

First, the author provides no evidence that the quality of a real-estate firm is directly proportional to the number of its agents or the number of hours per week that its agents work. The author bases his/her claim partly on the fact that Adams has more agents than Fitch, and  many of Fitch's agents work only part-time. However, the author does not provide any information about how many Adams part-time agents work.Lacking such evidence, the author cannot defend the conclusion that Adams is superior to Fitch since it is equally possible that a smaller firm is more effective than a larger one, and that a part-time agent is more effective than a full-time agent.

Secondly, the author overlooks the possibility that last year's sales volume amounted to an aberration, and that in most other years Adams has actually sold fewer properties than Fitch. Moreover, the differentia in sales volume can be explained by factors other than the comparative quality of the two firms. Perhaps Adams serves an area where turnover in home-ownership is higher for reasons irrelevant to Adams' effectiveness. Or perhaps sales volume is higher at Adams simply because its more agents, and each Adams agent actually sells fewer homes on average than each Fitch agent does. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the differentia in sales volume, the author cannot defend the conclusion that Adams is superior to Fitch.

Thirdly ,in further support of his/her claim the author points out that the average sales price of a home sold by Adams is greater than that of Fitch. However, this evidence shows only that the homes that Adams sells are more valuable on average than the ones that Fitch sells, not that Adams is more effective in selling homes than Fitch. Moreover, it is possible that a few relatively high-priced or low-priced properties skewed these averages, rendering any conclusion about the comparative quality of the two firms based on these averages unfair.The author cannot rely on this limited evidence to support his/her claim.


In summary, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer concludes. To strenthen that Adams is better than Fitch, the author would need to provide clear evidence that individual Adams agents are more effective in selling homes than individual Fitch agents, and that the diffenentia in home sales and sales price is attributable to that difference.It would be also better that if the arguer gives more information about the comparative attractiveness of the arguer's two homes, and the extent to which the residential real-estate market changed during the decade between the sale of these two homes.

linuariesUID：2117373

Merely based on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence,the arguer <concludes> that the home will be sold quickly and at a good price if the home-owner (use) <choose> Adams. To support this conclusion the author points out the number and working hours of the firms’ agents, and the (number and) sales prices of homes sold by the two firms. The author also cites anecdotal evidence involving his/her own experience with Fitch and Adams. Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little credible support for the author's assertion.

Thirdly ,in further support of his/her claim the author points out that the average sales price of (a home) <houses> sold by Adams is greater than that of Fitch. However, this evidence shows only that the homes that Adams sells are more valuable on average than the ones that Fitch sells, not that Adams is more effective in selling homes than Fitch. Moreover, it is possible that a few relatively high-priced or low-priced properties skewed these averages, rendering any conclusion about the comparative quality of the two firms based on these averages <is> unfair.The author cannot rely on this limited evidence to support his/her claim.


First, the author provides no evidence that the quality of a real-estate firm is directly proportional to the number of its agents or the number of hours per week that its agents work. The author bases his/her claim partly on the fact that Adams has more agents than Fitch, and  many of Fitch's agents work only part-time. However, the author does not provide any information about how many Adams part-time agents work.Lacking such evidence, the author cannot defend the conclusion that Adams is superior to Fitch since it is equally possible that a smaller firm is more effective than a larger one, and that a part-time agent is more effective than a full-time agent.

Secondly, the author overlooks the possibility that last year's sales volume amounted to an aberration, and that in most other years Adams has actually sold fewer properties than Fitch. Moreover, the differentia in sales volume can be explained by factors other than the comparative quality of the two firms. Perhaps Adams serves an area where turnover in home-ownership is higher for reasons irrelevant to Adams' effectiveness. Or perhaps sales volume is higher at Adams simply <because of> its more agents, and each Adams agent actually sells fewer homes on average than each Fitch agent does. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the differentia in sales volume, the author cannot defend <effectively> the conclusion that Adams is superior to Fitch.

In summary, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer concludes. To strenthen that Adams is better than Fitch, the author would need to provide clear evidence that individual Adams agents are more effective in selling homes than individual Fitch agents, and that the diffenentia in home sales and sales price is attributable to that difference.It would be also better that if the arguer gives more information about the comparative (attractiveness) <characters> of the arguer's two homes, and the extent to which the residential real-estate market changed during the decade between the sale of these two homes.

Comments: 木同学的argument写得很不错，行文流畅，逻辑上没有明显的错误，驳论的语言使用相当灵活--或者说我还没有背完模板的缘故？有一些语法错误，但是不影响整体。希望木同学继续努力。
PS: 把写作需要的时间也写出来，好有个参照，同样的题目我写了一个小时，结果还是不堪入目，sigh~~~

[ Last edited by linuaries on 2005-8-28 at 19:58 ]