argument241~

雷帝嘎嘎UID: 2762504

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."

提纲：
1.
找新工作的时间更短并不能说明D公司更好，而且W公司在八年前只有一半员工重新找到工作不能说明w公司不好
2.
公司员工数量和分公司数量不能说明公司水平
3.
没有考虑到价格问题

The arguer concludes that it would be a mistake hiring cheaper Walsh Personnel Firm (WPF) to replace current Delany Personnel Firm (DPF) for assisting the laid-off in finding new jobs. He/she compares the average time taking to find jobs and scale of faculties and branches. However, the reasoning is unconvincing in three points stated below.

Firstly, the writer fails to provide comparable time and portion of laid-off employees finding jobs to show DPF is more effective. There is only information available in for each company’s own situation. The author only emphasizes the seeming shorter average time taking by DPF's clients to WPF's and low portion of WPF eight years ago. There are many factors affecting the time and portion, such as the fired peoples' own abilities and their working fields. It is entirely possible that clients of WPF have lower abilities relating to their working fields, which inherently decide whether they could find new career position in a short period of time. And also, the main composing clients in the two firms may come from different fields, low-skilled as workers at manufacturing assembly line in WPF and high-skilled as IT programmers in DPF, for example. When the macroeconomic aura is going worse even slightly, two fields could both be negatively affected. However, with the recovery of whole economics, DPF's high-skilled programmers could easily re-find jobs in boosting IT companies, but unfortunately clients in WPF may not be so lucky under the worst condition that their suitable working field may be replaced by higher effective industries. If other factors are not precluded, it is groundless to state DPF is of higher effectiveness to help fired workers finding jobs.

Secondly, the author falsely relies on the assumption that larger total numbers of both staff and branch offices indicate better work. The organization of a company determines the number of branch offices. For example, the classification of project-centered organization which focuses on doing projects from in several locations, may have fewer branch offices as location-centered organization which requires fitting its program with regional conditions, in one single company. And with more branches, there could be probability that it also has more staffs, supposing average number of branch office’s faculties is the same. Another example is that even their organization type is similar; there could be more clerical and cleaning staff in DPF than WPF. Even though there are more staffs in DPF’s project branch, larger quantity could not guarantee higher quality. Possibly that faculties in DPF are tired of their work and not concentrating on working, making the total effectiveness less than WPF’s. Without detailed information of two corporations, just larger numbers of staff and offices do not indicate the superior performances.

Even granted that the arguer could substantiate the foregoing points, he/she seems intentionally ignores the cost of the two firms. It is clearly stated in the argument that WPF’s cost is less expensive than DPF’s, but it is not involved into consideration. It is possible that the price gap is so huge that covers the WPF’s inferior performance to DPF’s, being the first and main indicator of XYZ’s decision. Ignoring such cost and benefit analysis is unjust to evaluate DPF is a wise choice.

In sum, the evidence is incomplete and reasoning is ungrounded to draw the conclusion that DPF is a better choice. To bolster the statement, the arguer should rule out other factors influencing the time and portion finding new jobs; give more information about two firms’ situation and most importantly take the prices into consideration.

雷帝嘎嘎UID: 2762504

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."

提纲：
1.
找新工作的时间更短并不能说明D公司更好，而且W公司在八年前只有一半员工重新找到工作不能说明w公司不好
2.
公司员工数量和分公司数量不能说明公司水平
3.
没有考虑到价格问题

The arguer concludes that it would be a mistake hiring cheaper Walsh Personnel Firm (WPF) to replace current Delany Personnel Firm (DPF) for assisting the laid-off in finding new jobs. He/she compares the portion and average time taking to find jobs and scale of faculties and branches. However, the reasoning is unconvincing in three points stated below.

Firstly, the writer fails to provide comparable time and portion of laid-off employees finding jobs to show DPF is more effective. There is only information available in each company’s own situation. The author only emphasizes the seemingly shorter average time taken by DPF's clients comparedto WPF's and low portion of laid-off staffs who got a job later under the guidance of WPF eight years ago. However, There are many factors affecting the time and portion, such as the fired peoples' own abilities and their working fields. It is entirely possible that clients of WPF have lower abilities relating to their working fields, which inherently diminish the possibility for finding a new career position in a short period of time. And also, the main composing clients in the two firms may come from different fields, like manufacturing assembly lines and IT programs, for example. When the macroeconomic aura is going worse even slightly, two fields could both be negatively affected. However, with the recovery of whole economics, DPF's high-skilled programmers could easily re-find jobs in boosting IT companies, but unfortunately assembly line workers may not be so lucky. Because their previous working field may be so competitive, with crowded of laid-off workers who cannot find job in their former industry and decide to change into manufacturing, leaving them not enough working positions. (因为原来其它行业的人找不到工作决定该行从事制造业)If other factors are not precluded, it is groundless to state DPF is of higher effectiveness to help fired workers finding jobs.

Secondly, the author falsely relies on the assumption that larger numbers of staff and branch offices indicate better work. (下面的例子想说明分公司的数目多可能只是由不同的公司结构造成，比如以项目为中心的公司结构可能没有很多分公司，而以位置为中心的结构可能会有很多分公司以适应不同地方的特点。同一个公司如果以不同结构划分，子公司数量都可能不同。分公司的数目多少不能决定better work。不知道这个有没有偏离TS~~) Actually，the organization of a company determines the number of branch offices. For example, project-centered organization which focuses on doing projects from in several locations, may have fewer branch offices as location-centered organization which requires fitting its program with regional conditions, even in one single company. And with more branches, there could be probability that it also has more staffs, supposing average number of branch office’s faculties is the same. We can hardly find the correlation between larger numbers of staff and branch offices and better performance of assistance for the laid-off. Another example is that even their organization type is similar; there could be more clerical and cleaning staff in DPF than WPF, who is irrelevant with the employees assistance. Even though there are more staffs in DPF’s project branch, larger quantity could not guarantee higher quality. Possibly that faculties in DPF are tired of their work and not concentrating on working, making the total effectiveness less than WPF’s. Without detailed information of two corporations, just larger numbers of staff and offices do not indicate the superior performances.

Even granted that the arguer could substantiate that DPF’s performance if superior than WPF’s in aiding reemployment, he/she might intentionally ignore the cost of the two firms. It is clearly stated in the argument that WPF’s cost is less expensive than DPF’s, but it is not taken into consideration. It is possible that the difference in assistant performances is marginal, but the price gap is so huge that covers the WPF’s little inferior performance to DPF’s, being the first and main indicator of XYZ’s decision.(这一点考虑的确是不完善，我下来好好想想。) Ignoring such cost and benefit analysis, it is unjust to reach the conclusion that DPF is a wise choice.

In sum, the evidence is incomplete and reasoning is ungrounded to draw the conclusion that DPF is a better choice. To bolster the statement, the arguer should rule out other factors influencing the time and portion finding new jobs; give more information about two firms’ situation and most importantly take the prices into consideration.