argument4

remlusUID：203482

argument4 G-89-互助社-4日同主题写作

In this argument, the speaker claims the Adams Reality(AR) sells houses more quickly than Fitch Reality(FR) and at a good price. In order to bolster this viewpoint, the speaker asserts several advantages of AR such as more agents, more revenue, higher price and shorter time. Although the claim seems plausible at the first glance, a further scrutiny will reveal some logic flaws.

Firstly, the speaker fails to establish a causal relationship between more employees and more efficiency because we cannot rule out the possibility that FR's agents do better work as a whole although the number of them is less than AR. Just as we cannot make evaluation on students according to their time spent on learning, we  have no reason to judge the efficiency of the two companies on the basis of agent’s number. It is to say, the agents of FR may be so skilled that no more agents are needed while AR has to hire more people to offset their lack of proficiency. So the argument is not convincing.

Then the speaker suffers another fallacy of confusing revenue with profits. As is known to all, profit equals revenue subtracting cost, which equation tells us that only high revenue cannot assure high profit. So there is the possibility that in order to sell more houses, AR has to pay a large sum of costs to attract customers, which leads to a high revenue versus low profit.

In addition, the speaker weakens his claim by doing false analogy of selling speeds neglecting of time span and house difference. On one hand, the situation may has been changed so dramatically that experience ten year ago has nothing to do with the current situation. On the other hand, different houses, in terms of location, decoration and other factors, infers different demand and supply, which means that you may sell one house very easily while feel extremely difficult to sell another one. So this analogy is nonsense.

To sum up, as the speaker fails to give any convincing evidence that AR enjoys a better efficiency , this article is misleading and groundless. To make this argument tenable, the claimer should provide more accurate numbers and do more thoroughly research to substantiate his idea.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-9-5 at 17:04 ]

polymathUID：179557

把“argument4 G-89-互助社-4日同主题写作”放在大标题里面，着阿姨能够从外边坛子上一目了然，要不是大家可能就会错过了！
:)好！帮你顶！晚上有空再过来看看！;)

[ Last edited by polymath on 2005-9-5 at 17:56 ]

seeseafastUID：127774

In this argument, the speaker claims the Adams Reality(AR) sells houses more quickly than Fitch Reality(FR) [does] [with a good price] and at a good price. In order to bolster this viewpoint, the speaker asserts several advantages of AR such as more agents, more revenue, higher price and shorter time. Although the claim seems plausible at the first glance, a further scrutiny will [scrutiny reveals ] reveal some logic flaws.

Firstly, the speaker fails to establish [establish a positive causal relationship between employees and efficiency] a causal relationship between more employees and more efficiency because we cannot rule out the possibility that FR's agents do better work as a whole although the number of them is less than AR. /TOO LONG WITHOUT BREAK WILL BORE THE READER/ Just as we cannot make evaluation on students [perfermance only by their time spent ...] according to their time spent on learning, we  have no reason to judge the efficiency of the two companies [only by the basis of...] on the basis of agent’s number. It is to say, the agents of FR may be so skilled that no more agents are needed while AR has to hire more people to offset their lack of proficiency. So the argument is not convincing.

coquelicolUID：2117318

In this argument, the speaker claims the Adams Reality(AR) sells houses more quickly than Fitch Reality(FR) and at(with) a good price. In order to bolster this viewpoint, the speaker asserts several advantages of AR such as more agents, more revenue, higher price and shorter time. Although the claim seems plausible at the first glance, a further scrutiny will reveal some logic flaws.

Firstly, the speaker fails to establish a causal relationship between more employees and more efficiency(the numbers of emplyees and the quality of the company) because we cannot rule out the possibility that FR's agents do better work as a whole although the number of them（their employees?) is less than AR. Just as we cannot make evaluation on students according to their time spent on learning, we  have no reason to judge the efficiency of the two companies on the basis of agent’s number. It is to say, the agents of FR may be so skilled that no more agents are needed while AR has to hire more people to offset their lack of proficiency. So the argument is not convincing.(这里这句似乎不是很合适？)

Then the speaker suffers another fallacy of confusing revenue with profits. As is known to all, profit equals revenue subtracting cost, which equation tells us that only high revenue cannot assure(is not equal to?) high profit. So there is the possibility that in order to sell more houses, AR has to pay a large sum of costs to attract customers, which leads to a high revenue versus low profit.

In addition, the speaker weakens his claim by doing false analogy of selling speeds neglecting of time span and house difference. On one hand, the situation may has been changed so dramatically that experience ten year ago has nothing to do with the current situation..(这里似乎是想说明10年前的参考已经没有价值？considering the change during the past ten years the experience may be worthless?) On the other hand, different houses, in terms of location, decoration and other factors, infers different demand and supply, which means that you may sell one house very easily while feel extremely difficult to sell another one. So this analogy is nonsense.

To sum up, as the speaker fails to give any (用any似乎不太合适?用lacks such convincing evidence) convincing evidence that AR enjoys a better efficiency , this article is misleading and groundless. To make this argument tenable, the claimer(前后最好保持一致都用speaker) should provide more accurate numbers and do more thoroughly research to substantiate his idea.

小弟水平也不高，大概有几个地方稍微改了一下，不是你们小组的，不怪吧 =P
楼主的文个人看起来觉得挺奇怪的，可能和自己的写法不太一样，还有就是每段最后那句话怎么都觉得似乎不太合适。。。

而且有时候楼主用词似乎有点太绝对了，比如nonsense之类是不是就不太好，，，

还有楼主这篇字数是不是稍微有点少？

[ Last edited by coquelicol on 2005-9-5 at 18:39 ]

polymathUID：179557

在等同学带饭回来！帮你看看吧！下次最好把原题也附上哦！考过了题目大概都记不清楚了！:)发了才知道已经有人帮你改了！不过还是谈谈我的意见哦！毕竟是新社员嘛！;)
In this argument, the speaker claims the Adams Reality(AR) sells houses more quickly than Fitch Reality(FR) andeven at a good price. In order to bolster this viewpoint, the speaker asserts several advantages of AR such as more agents, more revenue, higher price and shorter time. Although the claim seems plausible at the first glance, a further scrutiny will reveal some logic flaws.

Firstly, the speaker fails to establish a causal relationship between more employees and more efficiency because we cannot rule out the possibility that FR's agents do better work as a whole although the number of them is less than AR. Just as we cannot make evaluation on students according to their time spent on learning, we  have no reason to judge the efficiency of the two companies on the basis of agent’s number. It is to say, the agents of FR may be so skilled that no more agents are needed while AR has to hire more people to offset their lack of proficiency. So the argument is not convincing可以酌情加上as it stands,帮助增加字数！.

Then the speaker suffers another fallacy of confusing revenue with profits. As is known to all, profit equals revenue subtracting cost, which equation tells us that only high revenue cannot assure high profit. So there is the possibility that in order to sell more houses, AR has to pay a large sum of costs to attract customers, which leads to a high revenue versus low profit.

In addition, the speaker weakens his claim by doing false analogy of selling speeds and/forneglecting of time span and house difference. On one hand, the situation may has been changed so dramatically that experience ten year ago has nothing to do with the current situation. On the other hand, different houses, in terms of location, decoration and other factors, infers different demand and supply, which means that you may sell one house very easily while feel extremely difficult to sell another one. So this analogy is nonsense.

To sum up, as the speaker fails to give any convincing evidence that AR enjoys a better efficiency , this article is misleading and groundless. To make this argument tenable, the claimer should provide more accurate numbers and do more thoroughly research to substantiate his idea.
总评：好严密和深入透彻的分析，没有什么明显的缺点哦！对了！有一个小小的建议哦！:D分论点每一个段的信号词最好统一一下！比如：firstly,secondly,thirdly; to begin with, then, in addition.So much advisement for your exercise.wish you do a better job next time!

[ Last edited by polymath on 2005-9-5 at 18:45 ]

remlusUID：203482

谢谢两位的指教，我会认真看的