@@茶叶蛋炒饭@@ 第十四次作业 argument233 请组员跟帖

yeshen2010UID: 2744103

Argument233

In this argument, the author concludes that they should contract with Appion Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to construct the access roads for new shopping malls. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to be appealing, but with a clear examination of the author’s reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.


First of all, the quality of the roads has no comparability in two different areas. The author claims that a section of Route 66 is in better condition than a section of Route 101. Maybe there are much heavier traffic on Route 101 which results in badly crack and marred by dangerous potholes, while little cars driving on Route 66.


Secondly, the causality that the state-of-the-art paving machinery and a new quality-control manager mean Appion Roadways’ work more superior and quality more credible cannot be established. Maybe no worker can operate the new machine in Appion, and the new manager is not so responsible which will lead low quality.


Thirdly, even if Appion is much better than McAdam, the construction company has no need to choose Appion. The company constructs shopping malls throughout the country, so it can contract with other roadway companies. Except Appion and McAdam, there may exist many other companies which have more excellent work and more reliable quality.


In conclusion, the author fails to substantiate his claim clearly. Because the evidence cited in the analysis is too weak to lend strong support to what the arguer suggests. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should convince us with more specific information.



改link的A233

The vice president suggests that the company should contract with Appian Roadways and give several reasons. However these reasons failed to support his statement. He does not consider the different of Route 101 and Route 66, the price difference of the Appian Roadways and McAdam Road Builders. He also did not give any information of the new quality-control manager of Appian and the requirement of the access roads for new shopping mall.


  First of all, the vice president only mentions the current condition of Route 101 and Route 66, but he does not give any information of number of passing cars. As we all known, traffic on the main street in New York is much more than the number of a street of New York' Suburb. Thus the comparison between Route 101 and Route 66 is meaningless without other information of the two streets.
攻击：副总裁没有给出关于过往车辆的足够信息。

  Secondly, the vice president mentioned that Appian has state of the art paving machinery. As a consequence, it is likely that the price of Appian will be higher than other company. Moreover, better machinery may be not better quality of their work. In my hometown, there is old automobile factory whose machineries were produced in 1960s but the factory can manufacture excellent product as well because its worker can handle the machinery adroitly. Therefore, highly technological machinery do not always produce excellent product, workers’ ability in the factory also affect largely the quality of its product.
第一句话最好直接点出什么错误，而不是陈述文章的内容。

  In addition, the Appian hired a new quality-control manger do not mean that he will do an outstanding work in this project. Perhaps he come to this state recently and does not know many details about the state such as customs. For example, this state’s trucks may be more than cars which is a important information when he manage the project. Hence this evidence also cannot prove that Appian will be competent for the project.
雇佣新的质管经理并不意味着工作杰出。

  Finally, the vice president confounds the function of street and access roads for shopping malls. Even though assuming that Appian is much better than McAdam in realm of paving street, but the access road's requirement is not the same to street. As we all known, the street should be more sturdy because traffic will be more frequent in the route. And the project of the street will be more expensive for its requirement. Thus the company should collect other information about the requirement of the access roads.
混淆街道和通往购物中心的路的功能。这个攻击点挺好的，我没想到，学习了

  To sum up, the vice president’s reasoning is several ill-conceived and lack of some information about requirement of access roads and the new quality-control of Appian. I suggest that the company should collect more information about the two roadways company and the requirement of the access road.

小结：建议段与段之间空行，要不然看着很累啊。

imlifewillingUID: 2706999

by 懒蚂蚁
18:58
The vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country argues that the company should hire Appian rather than McAham to construct the access roads for its new shopping malls for the reason that Appian has a superior work and commitment to quality which is based on the comparison of the two sections of different roads and the fact that Appian has purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. However, these two assumptions are incredible since the vice president ignores some other possible conditions that may affect the situations of the roads and the quality of the two companies.

In the first place, it is unfair to infer only based on the comparison of the two roads' situation that Appain is much better than McAdam in constructing road. Perhaps there are many more automobiles, especially heavy trucks, in the place where Route 101 is located than in the place where Route 66 is located, which can make the situations of the road repaved by McAdam worse than the road repaved by Appain. What's more, it is possible that the soil and the geological conditions of the area of Route 101 are less suitable for constructing roads than the conditions of the area of Route66. So without these and other conditions that may have effects on the difference between the two roads being excluded, the vice president cannot prove that Appain has superior work.

In the second place, it is unconvincing to claim that Appian is more commitment to quality than McAdan only through the fact that Appain has brought a new paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. Perhaps McAdam has already possessed this kind of machinery. And it is also possible that McAdam has a more effective and careful quality-manager than Appian's new one. What's more, Appian's new manager might be unfamiliar with the conditions of the company and have little to do with the improvement of the the quality. In addition, the reason that why Appian hire a new quality-manager might be his poorer quality than McAdam. In short, it is not right for the vice president simply draws out the conclusion that Appian is more careful about its quality than McAdam only based on this fact.

In the second place, even though the Appian has superior work and commitment to quality, it is also unconvincing for the vice president to claim that his company should hire Appian. On the one hand, the vice president makes this argument relied on the assumption that there are only these two companies which can construct roads. However, it is not impossible that there might be some other companies that are better than either of the two. What's more, even if there is only these two companies and the quality of Appian is better than McAdam, there are still some other elements, such as the costs of the two companies, the service of the two companies and so forth, that can affect the decision of which company should be chosen. That is to say, after considering the benefits comprehensively, it is possible that the company would choose McAdam rather than Appian.

To sum up, without excluding other conditions that may affect difference between the quality of Appian and McAdam, it is inappropriate to conclude that Appian is better than McAdam and our company should hire Appian. So in order to persuade the company to choose Appian, the vice president needs to provide sufficient evidence supporting the foundation that Appian is better than McAdam. In addition, it is also indispensable to prove that Appian is better than other companies, if there are some.
19:45

修改yeshenby懒蚂蚁
In this argument, the author concludes that they should contract with Appion Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to construct the access roads for new shopping malls. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to be appealing, but with a clear examination of the author’s reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.
开头说明题目有问题。
First of all, the quality of the roads has no comparability in two different areas. The author claims that a section of Route 66 is in better condition than a section of Route 101. Maybe there are much heavier traffic on Route 101 which results in badly crack and marred by dangerous potholes, while little cars driving on Route 66.
说明两段路没有可比性。
Secondly, the causality that the state-of-the-art paving machinery and a new quality-control manager mean Appion Roadways’ work more superior and quality more credible cannot be established. Maybe no worker can operate the new machine in Appion, and the new manager is not so responsible which will lead low quality.
说明机器和经理的原因。
Thirdly, even if Appion is much better than McAdam, the construction company（表述有问题） has no need to choose Appion. The company constructs shopping malls throughout the country, so it can contract with other roadway companies. Except Appion and McAdam, there may exist many other companies which have more excellent work and more reliable quality.
还有其他的公司。
In conclusion, the author fails to substantiate his claim clearly. Because the evidence cited in the analysis is too weak to lend strong support to what the arguer suggests. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should convince us with more specific information.

基本上每个攻击点都提出来了，但是感觉你好像在写提纲，不是在写作文。字数太少了。

mikestoneUID: 2734495

In the argument, the vice president states that they should contract with Appian Roadways to construct the access roads for all their new shopping malls. A compare between Appian Roadways (AR) and McAdam Road Builders (MRB), the recent behavior of AR are included. However, they are not convincing.

In the first place, compare between AR and MRB is given in order to show the quality of the section of Route 66 is better. However, there are many differences between the section of Route 101 and Route 66, such as the number of vehicles through the roads. It is entirely possible that there are only less than 100 automobiles through the section of Route 66 per day, whereas the number through Route 101 is more than 500. Furthermore, most of automobiles through Route 66 may be cars, and through Route 101 may be heavy trucks. If these things are true, the section of Route 101 no doubt is easily damaged. So, without these details, we can not accept the conclusion that the quality of the section of Route 66 is higher.

In the second place, the arguer claims that AR purchases state-of-the-art paving machinery, and hire a new quality-control manager, recently. However, maybe the new paving machinery is not suit to pave the road of the state, or the new manager is not full-experienced. Even AR equips the new machine and hire the manager, its quality may not be improved. What's more, information of MRB is not provided. Maybe, MRB has used state-of-the-art paving machinery for several months, and now it also purchased more likely paving machineries. At the same time, MRB may hire several experienced quality-control manager. So, its strength may have surpassed AR. Therefore, lacking the information about the new machines, the new manager, and the behavior of MRB, the conclusion, that the work of AR is superior, is not persuasive.

Finally, further information about AR and MRB is not proposed to support that AR is more suitable to construct the access roads for all the shopping mall. The information includes the costs, the machines, etc. It is possible that we have to paid more to AR for the constructions, or the machine used to build access roads is completely difference and AR cannot fulfill the task. Maybe, MBR is more excellent to build the access roads of the shopping malls. So, to convince us that we should use AR, the arguer should give more evidences.

In sum, the recommendation is not convincing. To make it more persuasive, the arguer should provide more details about the section of Route 101 and Route 66, information about the new machines and the new manager, and the behavior of the MRB. In addition, things, like the costs of AR and MRB, should be also considered.

改懒蚂蚁
The vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country argues that the company should hire Appian rather than McAham to construct the access roads for its new shopping malls for the reason that Appian has a superior work and commitment to quality which is based on the comparison of the two sections of different roads and the fact that Appian has purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. However, these two assumptions are incredible since the vice president ignores some other possible conditions that may affect the situations of the roads and the quality of the two companies.


这个开头挺不错的，值得学习。

In the first place, it is unfair to infer only based on the comparison of the two roads' situation that Appain is much better than McAdam in constructing road. Perhaps there are many more automobiles, especially heavy trucks, in the place where Route 101 is located than in the place where Route 66 is located, which can make the situations of the road repaved by McAdam worse than the road repaved by Appain. What's more, it is possible that the soil and the geological conditions of the area of Route 101 are less suitable for constructing roads than the conditions of the area of Route66. So without these and other conditions that may have effects on the difference between the two roads being excluded, the vice president cannot prove that Appain has superior work.

In the second place, it is unconvincing to claim that Appian is more commitment to quality than McAdan only through the fact that Appain has brought a new paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. Perhaps McAdam has already possessed this kind of machinery. And it is also possible that McAdam has a more effective and careful quality-manager than Appian's new one. What's more, Appian's new manager might be unfamiliar with the conditions of the company and have little to do with the improvement of the the quality. In addition, the reason that why Appian hire a new quality-manager might be his poorer quality than McAdam. In short, it is not right for the vice president simply draws out the conclusion that Appian is more careful about its quality than McAdam only based on this fact.

In the third place, even though the Appian has superior work and commitment to quality, it is also unconvincing for the vice president to claim that his company should hire Appian. On the one hand, the vice president makes this argument relied on the assumption that there are only these two companies which can construct roads. However, it is not impossible that there might be some other companies that are better than either of the two. What's more, even if there is only these two companies and the quality of Appian is better than McAdam, there are still some other elements, such as the costs of the two companies, the service of the two companies and so forth, that can affect the decision of which company should be chosen. That is to say, after considering the benefits comprehensively, it is possible that the company would choose McAdam rather than Appian.

To sum up, without excluding other conditions that may affect difference between the quality of Appian and McAdam, it is inappropriate to conclude that Appian is better than McAdam and our company should hire Appian. So in order to persuade the company to choose Appian, the vice president needs to provide sufficient evidence supporting the foundation that Appian is better than McAdam. In addition, it is also indispensable to prove that Appian is better than other companies, if there are some.

结尾也弄的比较好，学习了。
总结：写得很好了，只能好好学习了。

cycy881125UID: 2625420

written by AlanC

This following memo from the vice president results that it is the superior work and commitment to quality that should contract with Appian Roadways Rather than McAdam Raod Builders. To support the conclusion, the arguer states that the quality of a section of Route 101 paved by McAdam Road builder and a section of Route 66 paved by Appian Roadways. In addition, the arguer points out that Appian Roadways has just purchased new machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. These reasons are seemingly retional, however, A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.


In the first place, the comparison in this argument is incomplete and selective. Through comparing the present situation of the two section of two different Route with the using time section built by McAdam less than that of Appian, the author thought of that quality of the road built by Appian is better than that of McAdam. However, the author fail to provide some information concerning what kind of vehicles have gotten across the section of Route, moreover, he has not explained that how many cars have the two road conveyed every day. And they are important means to evaluate the quality of a road. It is likely that the section of Route 101 built by McAdam has been designed to be a main public road of this state; hence traffic throughput could be heavier, when the quantity excess the maximum, the road would be cracked, while the other road has been designed to be a subsidiary road. Then the cracked road has also possibly been designed to convey the oversize vehicle and the other provide small cars to go through. Unless we are sure that two roads has been designed for the same purpose, and they have the same throughput, which is very unlikely, we have every cause to doubt the trustworthiness of this comparative study.


In the second place, the author fails to take into account the condition of Appian’ s new settle and its new manager. Although we could conclude that the road built by Appian has been a better quality for that section is still in good condition more than four years past, yet it is not a sufficient reason using state-of-the-art paving machinery and hiring a new quality-control manager to support to contract with Appian Roadways. This fact tells very litter about how well the new manager has adapted in Appian Roadways, and what actual conditions when the new settle has been used. It is possibly that this new manager could get well along with other workers during work hours, hence the efficiency might be decreased, then the quality of road would not be certain. On the other hand, even if the machine is the most advanced, new technology might confront new problems, and perhaps the machine is too complicated to operate, hence the quality of work could be influenced. Unless we are certain that this manager would be more excellent and he could adapt this new situation as soon as possible, then the new machine could be made full use of in work hours, which would be incredible.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should have to illustrate that the quality of road built by two company in comprehensive thoughts. Additionally, the arguer should also demonstrate that the ability of new manager and whether the new machine runs in well or bad.


修改stone

In the argument, the vice president states that they should contract with Appian Roadways to construct the access roads for all their new shopping malls. A compare between Appian Roadways (AR) and McAdam Road Builders (MRB),（这句话只有主语） the recent behavior of AR are included（这句话用的有点不好）. However, they are not convincing.
In the first place, compare（我记到好像一般用comparison） between AR and MRB is given in order to show the quality of the section of Route 66 is better. However, there are many differences between the section of Route 101 and Route 66, such as the number of vehicles through the roads. It is entirely possible that there are only less than 100 automobiles through the section of Route 66 per day, whereas the number through Route 101 is more than 500. Furthermore, most of automobiles through Route 66 may be cars, and through Route 101 may be heavy trucks. If these things are true, the section of Route 101 no doubt（undoubtedly） is easily damaged. So, without these details, we can not accept the conclusion that the quality of the section of Route 66 is higher.
这一段否定作者的第一个推断。原因是由于信息提供不完整，对比不具有可比性。

In the second place, the arguer claims that AR purchases state-of-the-art paving machinery, and hire a new quality-control manager, recently. However, maybe the new paving machinery is not suit to(suitable for) pave(paving) the road of the state, or the new manager is not full-experienced. Even AR equips the new machine and hire the manager, its quality may not be improved. What's more, information of MRB is not provided. Maybe, MRB has used state-of-the-art paving machinery for several months, and now it also purchased more likely paving machineries. At the same time, MRB may hire several experienced quality-control manager. So, its strength may have surpassed AR. Therefore, lacking the information about the new machines, the new manager, and the behavior of MRB, the conclusion, that the work of AR is superior, is not persuasive.
这段话你是对第二个推断的否定，原因就是信息不完全，没有给出经理和机器的完整信息；同时也没有给出对方公司的情况。因此，你的这一段写的还是论述的比较完整的。

Finally, further information about AR and MRB is not proposed to support that AR is more suitable to（suitable for） construct the access roads for all the shopping mall. The information includes the costs, the machines, etc. It is possible that we have to paid more to AR for the constructions, or the machine used to build access roads is completely difference and AR cannot fulfill the task. Maybe, MBR is more excellent to build the access roads of the shopping malls. So, to convince us that we should use AR, the arguer should give more evidences.
这一段是你少写了一个让步，让步是很重要的，如果你不让步的话，这一段就是矛盾的。
因为不让步，则你前两段的否定已经说明了选择AR是不能被支持的，既然已经不能被支持了，你在写这一段就没有意义了。所以你应该让步，即就算AR公司能够造出质量更好的路来，我们也不应该选择它…..

In sum, the recommendation is not convincing. To make it more persuasive, the arguer should provide more details about the section of Route 101 and Route 66, information about the new machines and the new manager, and the behavior of the MRB. In addition, things, like the costs of AR and MRB, should be also considered.

鱼晒月亮UID: 2723622

临暄的
By comparing Appian Roadways with McAdam Road Builders, the author simply assume that Appian Roadways is suitable for constructing access roads for new shopping malls. However, we will find that the author neglects several influence factors by careful analysis.

The condition of section surface of different route fails to demonstrate work and commitment to quality. As a common sense, weather, erosion, types and amounts of vehicles etc all will have influence on the surface of a section. What is possible is that many vehicles pass through Route 101, especially those heavy vehicles, while only few of vehicles pass through Route 66 and they are light, small cars. Another possibility is that serious weather and erosion lead to badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes after Route 101 was paved two years, on the contrary, a section of Route 66 does not suffer from these factors and so it is still in good condition after paved more than four years.

Additionally, the author also points out other reasons for choosing Appian Roadways- purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manger. The two reasons seem efficient but they are invalid because of lack of enough evidence. The evidence may include the possibility that McAdam Road Builders has more state-of-the-art paving machinery and new quality-control manger than Appian Roadways or McAdam Road Builders has better advance machinery and experienced quality-control manger or other methods help work and quality control while Appian Roadway has not. Even if ignores this possibility, which is not meant the machinery and manger may work well in the course of constructing the access roads for the new shopping malls.  Perhaps this state-of-the-art machinery is used for constructing route rather than access roads. And the manager is not loyal to his job and controls the quality of roads. Moreover, owing to different demands between Route and access roads for shopping mall as well as being short of information, there exists possibility that McAdam Road Builders is fit for constructing these roads instead of Appian Roadways.
As a result, the author’s conclusion seems reasonable, but before acceptation, the company should think second time. Unless the author can replenish or provide more information concerning on the two roads-built companies, the two routes environment, weather etc as above mentioned.