argument4 第一篇限时成功的A,接着伸手要红包

irvine666UID: 2575525

限时成功!最好的新年礼物了,虽然写的不怎么样,不过时间还长着哪...

TOPIC: ARGUMENT4 - 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."
WORDS: 365         TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009/1/25 16:57:13

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion; one should choose Adams Realty (AR) rather than Fitch Realty (FR), by a series of deductions. However, to my understanding, the suggestion is based on invalid analogies and incogent evidences.

First and foremost, the author emphasizes that AR owns more real estate agents than FR possesses. But he failed to consider possibilities that more workers are by no means more work efficient. The workers in FR may share comfortable work environment, enough human touch, and surrounded by optimistic attitude which are rarely in AR. Therefore, workers in FR have more motivations to urge themselves to higher profits. Furthermore, the cost of human resource management and operation must be taken in to consideration to judge the final profits. It is highly probably that AR spent more budgets on workers' salaries and daily water rate and electric charge, which potentially influenced its profits.  

Moreover, high price of home sales may not lead to high profits either. As it is known to us all, profit is produced by sell price minus cost. So besides the price of building, we have to consider another aspect -- production and operation cost. Perhaps FR has many long-term suppliers, and they built mutually beneficial relationships and cooperation together. Hence the prices of materials of FR are much lower than the ones of AR, Which play a crucial role in determining final profits. So the conclusion: AR is more powerful than FR is doubtful.

Finally, the author failed to consider the change of price and requirement in real estate market. Maybe customers were poorer than they are now, or probably by the development of the town, the population explosion is emerged. Thus the needs of apartment are obviously elevated, which, result in fast sale. So, the suggestion that buying AR's building lead to quick sell of house is not as cogent as it seems to be.

As is mentioned above, the conclusion is not persuasive to me. The author has to furnish more effective evidences such as the annual bulletins of two companies and more background information just like comparing the economy now to it was ten years ago to readers.

leader2050UID: 2591145

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion; one should choose Adams Realty (AR) rather than Fitch Realty (FR), by a series of deductions. However, to my understanding, the suggestion is based on invalid analogies and incogent evidences.

First and foremost, the author emphasizes that AR owns more real estate agents than FR possesses. But he failed to consider possibilities that more workers are by no means more work efficient. The workers in FR may share comfortable work environment, enough human touch, and surrounded by optimistic attitude which are rarely (词性有问题，应该是rare 或者which rarely occurs) in AR. Therefore, workers in FR have more motivations to urge themselves to higher profits. Furthermore, the cost of human resource management and operation must be taken in to consideration to judge the final profits. It is highly probably (应该是probable) that AR spent more budgets on workers' salaries and daily water rate and electric charge, which potentially influenced its profits.  

Moreover, high price of home sales may not lead to high profits either. As it is known to us all, profit is produced by sell price minus cost. So besides the price of building, we have to consider another aspect -- （这个符号有点奇怪）production and operation cost. Perhaps FR has many long-term suppliers, and they built mutually beneficial relationships and cooperation together. Hence the prices of materials of FR are much lower than the ones of AR, Which play a crucial role in determining final profits. So the conclusion: AR is more powerful than FR is doubtful.

Finally, the author failed to consider the change of price and requirement in real estate market. Maybe customers were poorer than they are now, or probably by the development of the town, the population explosion is emerged(感觉应该是emerges). Thus the needs of apartment are obviously elevated, which, result in fast sale. So, the suggestion that buying AR's building lead to quick sell of house is not as cogent as it seems to be.

As is mentioned above, the conclusion is not persuasive to me. The author has to furnish more effective evidences (evidence 是不是只有单数)such as the annual bulletins of two companies and more background information just like comparing the economy now to it was ten years ago to readers.

文章写得很流畅，但是个人觉得字数太少，应该在420-450比较好，可以再加一点：要让房产卖得更快更好，除了选择一个好的公司还有很多其他因素影响。

leader2050UID: 2591145

我也写了同样的一篇，帮忙看看不？

In this argument, the arguer concludes that one should use Adams rather than Fitch to sell home quickly with a good price. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that Adams is superior to Fitch because of more agents, more revenue last year, and more quickly selling time. Close scrutiny of those facts, however, reveals they suffer critical flaws.

To begin with, the mere fact that Adams owns more real estate agents than Fitch does not mean that they can operate much better. A myriad of other possibilities must be taken into consideration. Perhaps most of agents in Adam are novices whose working efficiency is limited, while those agents in Fitch are experienced and adroit in the area of real estate. Or the agents in Adams would be disturbed by the disordered discipline in the company, but those in Fitch would be urged by their optimistic atmosphere. In the either case, the argument cannot convincingly draw the conclusion that Adams is superior to Fitch.

Secondly, the fact that Adams share more revenue last year does not necessarily indicate that their performance is much better than Fitch either. By concluding the fact, the arguer unfairly assumes that the company’s revenue is tantamount to the company’s profits. As we all know, profit is produced by the revenue minus the cost. It is entirely possible that the cost in Adams is extremely higher than it in Fitch due to more salaries for employees and more expense on operation procedure, which might just offset the positive effect by more revenue. If in this case, the comparing of two firms’ profits might even be reversed. Without ruling out this possible scenario, the argument cannot justifiably on the basis of them conclude that Adams works much better than Fitch.

Thirdly, the arguer unfairly assumes that home listed with Adams sells faster than Fitch either. Common sense informs me that, when selling the house, the deal would be affected by a great number of factors besides the real estate firms. It is likely that some other critical factors changes significantly during last decade, such as the roaring of local economy and explosion of local population, which promotes the real estate market and shorten the time for selling; or two houses sold by me in last ten years are totally different in size and region, which make one more popular and the other be snubbed. Unless every relative aspect of two houses is similar in last ten year, the arguer cannot make such analogy and on the basis of them conclude that Adams can sell houses faster than Fitch.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer should offer more details about the operation condition of Adams. To better assess the recommendation, I want to know more information about the deal of the arguer’s house mentioned in the argument.

nvligreUID: 2689384

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion; one （这个地方不要用one可以换成people之类的）should choose Adams Realty (AR) rather than Fitch Realty (FR), by a series of deductions. However, to my understanding, the suggestion is based on invalid analogies and incogent evidences.

First and foremost, the author emphasizes that AR owns more real estate agents than FR possesses. But he failed to consider possibilities that more workers are by no means more work efficient. The workers in FR may share comfortable work environment, enough human touch, and surrounded by optimistic attitude which are rarely in AR. Therefore, workers in FR have more motivations to urge themselves to higher profits. Furthermore, the cost of human resource management and operation must be taken in to consideration to judge the final profits. It is highly probably that AR spent more budgets on workers' salaries and daily water rate and electric charge, which potentially influenced its profits.  

Moreover, high price of home sales may not lead to high profits either. As it is known to us all, profit is produced by sell price minus cost. So besides the price of building, we have to consider another aspect -- production and operation cost. Perhaps FR has many long-term suppliers, and they built mutually beneficial relationships and cooperation together. Hence the prices of materials of FR are much lower than the ones of AR, Which play a crucial role in determining final profits. So the conclusion: AR is more powerful than FR is doubtful.

Finally, the author failed to consider the change of price and requirement in real estate market. Maybe customers were poorer than they are now, or probably by the development of the town, the population explosion is emerged. Thus the needs of apartment are obviously elevated, which, result in fast sale. So, the suggestion that buying AR's building lead to quick sell of house is not as cogent as it seems to be.

As is mentioned above, the conclusion is not persuasive to me. The author has to furnish more effective evidences such as the annual bulletins of two companies and more background information just like comparing the economy now to it was ten years ago to readers.
文章整体不错值得学习