上了4节作文课，第一篇argument,恳请大家批评和改正~

山芋妹妹UID: 2757513

Argument 179:


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."






In the memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation, it is recommended to hire Discount Foods in the employee cafeteria next year instead of the Good-Taste Company. To support the recommendation, it is pointed out that the Good-Taste Company keeps its price rising and doesn’t provide special meals. Also, three employee’s complaints contributes to its satisfaction. However, the Discount Foods is thought to be better according to the memorandum for its varied menu of fish and poultry and the writer’s personal experience. This argument is based on a couple of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it to be unpersuasive.
Firstly, the argument’s claim that the Good-Taste Company (GTC) is the second most expensive in the city and that its prices have risen in each of the last three years doesn’t necessarily leads to its dissatisfaction. There’s a possibility that GTC owns good qualities, such as fantastic food and considerate service to remain its high price. Or perhaps the Discount Foods asks for a higher price than GTC which leaves the recommendation groundless.
Besides, complaints from three employees that their experience was unbearable isn’t statistically reliable to prove its dissatisfaction among the company. The number is too small to effectively support the assumption that GTC is largely unwelcome. Provided that the company consists of 3000 employees, then the complaints can be totally ignored. Without strong statistic evidence, it can’t be concluded that GTC provides poor service and shouldn’t be rehired.
Another unreliable assumption is that the argument regards the food provided by the Discount Foods delicious only according to the writer’s taste of one sample lunch of the Discount Foods. The experience isn’t representative enough of the DF’s food and it’s unfair to draw any conclusion from it. It’s very likely that the sample is delicately prepared for the director in order to get his/her favor. So, I can’t agree with the statement that Discount Foods provides better food without stronger support.
Finally, the fact that Discount Foods offers a varied menu of fish and poultry doesn’t equal its good service. It can be true that the menu lacks many kinds of food, like vegetables and beef, which prevents the menu from being accepted by a large number of people.
In sum, I can’t accept the idea stated in the argument that the company should replace the Good-Taste Company by Discount Foods. To make the argument convincing, there should be better evidence to prove that the GTC is overcharging and the food quality of Discount Foods is greater. What’s more, it’s better to provide firmer statistics to reveal the common dislike of the GTC among the employees.