[a习作temp] ARGUMENT233 拍死我不偿命做鬼也感激你 [复制链接]

peterboy
UID: 2638100

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 195
注册时间: 2009-8-17
精华: 0
帖子: 4

发表于 2009-8-26 22:15:31 |显示全部楼层

TOPIC: ARGUMENT233 - The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country.

"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. Appian Roadways has recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery, and it has hired a new quality-control manager. Because of its superior work and commitment to quality, we should contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls."
WORDS: 436
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009/8/26 21:58:18 Peter

The evidence cited along with the analysis and deduction can hardly support the conclusion that contracting with Appian Roadways (AR) is the superior choice to conduct the access roads for all our shopping malls. This argument suffers from several logical flaws as follows.

To begin with, the comparison between McAdam Road Builder (MRB) and AR is open to doubt. Merely based on the fact Route 101, paved by MRB two years ago, is now in more severe condition than Route 66 paved by AR, we cannot draw the conclusion that AR is better than MRB firmly. It is highly possible that Route 101 has much more vehicles passing everyday, especially heavy ones like tracks. Route 66, if anything, suffers a little from traffic which might be a place people seldom pass by. Moreover, maybe MRB locates in a region where climate is rainy a lot while it is always fine in AR's. No explanation about the road conditions between them, the comparison is unwarranted.

Given MRB is indeed worse than AR in paving Route years ago; we still cannot believe it is the same in present day. The arguer claims that AR has recently purchased state-of -the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager which renders my consideration. There is high chance that the new coming manager does not familiar with the new working environment in AR which leads to the disharmony in staffs. Or perhaps only the manager is qualified while other staffs are not capable enough to get their jobs well done as they too older to pave roads unlike four years ago. Also, maybe nobody can operate the new bought machinery as it is of high technology which means owning extra machinery has no advantages. Without ruling out such scenarios, the assumption that AR is as good as before in paving roads is ungrounded.

Even assuming that AR is still good at paving as usual, the conclusion is still unconvincing as the arguer commits a fallacy of false dilemma. Barely considered two road building companies, without comparing with other companies which might have even better paving skills as well as cheaper charge, the arguer is too hasty to make the conclusion. Only after considering and excluding other road building companies, can we really believe what the arguer maintains is sensible.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned hence lack of solid ground. More specific information should have been presented to demonstrate AR is indeed better than MRB in paving roads and no other companies better than AR exists. Only in this way can the conclusion be logically accepted.