argument179=美丽G程小组=小组第11次作业by 曦范

曦范UID: 2724845

TOPIC: ARGUMENT179 - The following is a memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation.
"It would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee cafeteria next year. It is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience 'unbearable.' Our company should instead hire Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned local company and it offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. I recently tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount serves and it was delicious-an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction."
WORDS: 381          TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2010-1-23 23:14:01
Merely based on the dubious assumptions, the author claimed that Cedar Corporation should hire Discount Food to supply the food for their employee. To support this conclusion, the author pointed out several shortcomings of the previous company Good-Tast: the prices have risen, the rejection on special diets, and some complains about that food company. Then, the author set out the reason that Cedar had better hire Discount Food is their food was delicious. At first glance, this argument appears somewhat convincing, but furthur reflection reveals it suffers two logical flaws.
A threshold problem is  the author didn't give us enough evidence to show that Good-Taste was no longer a proper choice for Cedar. First, Good-Taste was the second most expensive caterer in the city maybe just due to its high food quality and nice services. Second, there might be a lot of reasons for Good Taste had to rise its prices, such as a nationwide inflation or the rising costs of  food industry. Third, the refuse of the special diets does not indicate that it will no longer meet the need of the Cedar employee, unless there was a large demand of the special diet and Good-Taste kept providing the special diet before. Moreover, the three employees complain lacks the necessary representatives for the overall performance of Good-taste. To sum up, the director   made a general judgement of Good-Taste too hastly.
Another point the author failed to consider throughly was the reason why the Cedar should hire Disount Food. The author mentioned Discount offers a varied menu of fish and poultry, but we don't sure whether the employee like it or not because the menu was somewhat limited. In addition, the author's judgement about the food was only based on his flavour, of course it can not cover a overall preferance of Disount' food by all the employee.
To conclude, this auguer failed to substantiate the claim about hire Discout Food instead of Good-Taste, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support. To make the augument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information about the food and service of Disount, and more evidence to show that Good-Taste will no longer meet the needs of the employee. Thus this argument will be more logically acceptable.