Argument4 敬请大家赐教，谢谢. 请留下链接，方便回拍

Archer1123UID: 206148

ＡＲＧＵＭＥＮＴ
4. “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.”
1.        工作人员的数量，全职or 兼职不能代表他们的水平高低，而且未提A的兼职数量
2.        售房的平均价格不能代表A的能力高于F，有可能A销售的本来就是高价房，
3.        一个例子太少，而且时间上间隔了十年，无可比性
4.        忽略其它因素，例如佣金，（A的收入是两倍可能是因为收取过高的佣金）服务态度等

In the argument, the author claims that Adams Realty （AR）is superior than Fitch Realty (FR), hence people should choose AR. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible and reasonable, because the author provides relative data and quotes one example to substantiate the conclusion. However, on the second thought, as a matter of fact this statement is not persuasive as it stands and cannot be accepted under the careful examination and scrutiny.

To begin with, the author's conclusion bases on a questionable conception that the more agents, the better performance of the firm. It is the professional level of agents that determines the repute and achievement of the firm. The author does not provide the detailed information of agents except the quantity of AR and FR. Perhaps, every agent in FR is preeminent in the field, while most of agents in AR are middling, even in low-level. Simultaneously, the author points out many of agents in FR work part-time, in fact working schedule has not direct relationship of the ability or efficiency. So, the data cannot support author’s conclusion strongly. What’s more, the author does not provide the number of part-time agent in AR. Perhaps, AR has more part-time agents than FR.

Furthermore, the author renders two comparative averaged prices of sold homes of AR and FR to convince us AR is superior to FR. However, the date is unhelpful to evaluate the performance without the detailed information of these sold homes. Maybe homes sold by AR is better and the real price is higher than those sold by FR. Maybe FR could sell higher price than $168,000 if FR deals with the homes which has sold by AR. If so, the author’s conclusion will be weakened greatly.
  
In addition, the author cites one example to prove that AR is more effective than FR. But one example is too small to testify a conclusion. Moreover, the only example is unconvincing because the market condition in ten years ago was totally different the last year. The possibility cannot be excluded that it would take less time for FR to sell could sell author’s home last year.

Last but not the least, the author fails to rule out other factors that can change the choice of clients. For instance, how much is the commission and how about the service quality? We have the good reason to doubt whether the higher revenue roots in higher commission. Perhaps, AR treats clients inhospitably or uncourteously, while FR’s service is warm and considerate.  

To sum up, based on what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is obvious that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous to be accepted. In order to make the conclusion more convincing, the author should gather more specific data about agents in AR and FR, and cites more persuasive examples then makes scientific comparison between AR and FR.