=七月流火=第五次作业AGU（快告别小组了。）

dongzhi428UID: 2556730

TOPIC: ARGUMENT241 - The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ Company.

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."
WORDS: 451
TIME: 00:35:00
DATE: 2009-8-27 11:09:10

The author of this argument claims that it would be a mistake of using the less-expensive Walsh Personnel instead of Delany Personnel. To justify the conclusion, the author points out that last year the laid-off employees who used Delany Personnel found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. In addition, he asserts that a record of eight years ago showed that only half of the workers we laid off had found within a year when we used the Walsh Personnel. Furthermore, he indicates that the Delany Personnel have bigger staff and larger number of branch of offices. However, based on series of unwarranted assumptions the argument suffers form several critical flaws as follows.

To begin with, in the absence of naturally warrant the author cannot conclude that the laid-off employees who used Delany Personnel found jobs much more quickly last year has significantly contributed, and thus is causal to Delany Personnel's benefited. There is no evidence about the laid-off employees use and not use the Delany Personnel, hence we not know whether there exit other factors for their finding jobs quickly. Such as the laid-off employees who used Delany Personnel have much more patient and better working experience. Without that useful information we cannot easily draw the conclusion that it is the Delany Personnel's benefits.

Moreover, the argument's assertor infer that which functioned well in the past will also take effect, which is unpractical unless firm evidence are offered to assure that all conditions upon which their effectiveness depend keep constant during the eight years. What the author neglects is possible that eight years ago, the business of local market was much more worse than now and maybe it was already efficiency for the workers we laid off had found jobs within a year.

Finally, the author false to built a cause and effect relationship between bigger staff and larger number of branch and better service and result the Delany Personnel would offer. Without the efficiency and quality of the individual's performance, the author cannot conclude that the bigger staff and larger number of branch, the better service and result it will offer. Secondly, since the Walsh Personne is cheaper than the Delany Personnel, the author also needs to consider the profits and show more relevant data about the profits.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this argument lacks credibility since the evidence is not reliable. To better evaluate the conclusion we need more concrete evidence that more data about whether it is the Delany Personnel's benefits of improving the laid-off employees interviews' ability and providing deeper research in the profit and advantages of using Delany Personnel. Otherwise, the argument is not convincing enough to be accepted.

KiKi~淇水滺滺UID: 2679824

The author of this argument claims that it would be a mistake of using the less-expensive Walsh Personnel instead of Delany Personnel. To justify the conclusion, the author points out that last year the laid-off employees who used Delany Personnel found jobs much more quickly than did（不要） those who did not. In addition, he asserts that a record of eight years ago showed that only half of the workers we laid off had found within a year when we used the Walsh Personnel. Furthermore, he indicates that the Delany Personnel have bigger（more） staffs and larger number of branch of offices. However, based on series of unwarranted assumptions the argument suffers form(from) several critical flaws as follows.

To begin with, in the absence of naturally warrant the author cannot conclude that the laid-off employees who used Delany Personnel found jobs much more quickly last year has significantly contributed, and thus is causal to Delany Personnel's benefited. There is no evidence about the laid-off employees use and not use the Delany Personnel, hence we not know whether there exit other factors for their finding jobs quickly. Such as the laid-off employees who used Delany Personnel have much more patient and better working experience. Without that useful information we cannot easily draw the conclusion that it is the Delany Personnel's benefits.

Moreover, the argument's assertor infer that which functioned well in the past will also take effect, which is unpractical unless firm evidence are offered to assure that all conditions upon which their effectiveness depend keep constant during the eight years. What the author neglects is possible that eight years ago, the business of local market was much more worse than now and maybe it was already efficiency for the workers we laid off had found jobs within a year.

Finally, the author false to built a cause and effect relationship between bigger staff and larger number of branch and better service and result the Delany Personnel would offer. Without the efficiency and quality of the individual's performance, the author cannot conclude that the bigger staff and larger number of branch, the better service and result it will offer.(这句话会不会重复了) Secondly, since the Walsh Personnel is cheaper than the Delany Personnel, the author also needs to consider the profits and show more relevant data about the profits.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in this argument lacks credibility since the evidence is not reliable. To better evaluate the conclusion we need more concrete evidence that more data about whether it is the Delany Personnel's benefits of improving the laid-off employees’ interview（ing） ability and providing deeper research in the profit and advantages of using Delany Personnel. Otherwise, the argument is not convincing enough to be accepted.

注意限时哦~~两篇的限时好像都不是很成功哦~~