argu24 有拍必回~

yataUID: 2764788

24.The following appeared in a memo from the president of Viva-Tech, a manufacturer of high-tech medical equipment.

"In order to reduce costs, we should close some of our existing small assembly plants and build a large central plant. Grandview would be an ideal location for this new plant. First, of the locations that we have considered, Grandview has the largest adult population, so that we will be able to staff our plant quickly and easily. Second, since the average wage earned by workers in Grandview is less than that in the other locations, we should be able to keep production costs low. Last, as an inducement for us to build there, Grandview's town council has offered to allow us to operate for the first three years without paying city taxes."



The author recommends that some small assembly plants should be closed and a large one will be built in order to reduce costs. After all, Grandview owns adequate adult population while the average income is lower than other areas. In addition, taxes are free for the first three years. However, it is groundless to judge the costs can be decreased by building a new plant in Grandview as the lack of specific research.


First, the author assumes that the largest adult number is attributable to the stuff the plant easily and quickly. However, the author is lacking evidence to confirm the assumption. It is entirely possible that the adults there do not get enough education to be a staff, so if the plant still decides to hire those people, Viva-Tech has to pay for the extra fee for training, which actually increase the expense rather than reduce it. For that matter, however, if Viva-Tech does not intend to hire local people who are inappropriate to the job, the fee for other staff to commute is equally an expense, which may obey the original plan of reducing the costs. Without ruling out all the possibilities, the largest population of adults cannot convincing me that Viva-Tech would save expense by hiring local people as the staff.


Second, assuming that the cost for wages can be kept in a lower level in the fact that the average wages earned by workers there is less than in other cities, the author overlook the possibility that not only wages for workers is a kind of outcome, but other expense, such as the fee for raw material and transport, should be taken into account. Building the central plant to a new area, it is very likely that all the expenses would vary from the prior one, while the author provides no evidence that the total expenses on the new plant will decrease. To be convincing, the author should list all the possible costs and compare it with the present's expenses.


Third, the exemption for first three years in Grandview is insufficient to warrant the decrease of the cost. The arguer fails to provide any information concerning the fee that would be paid three years later, which may be high as several times as other areas. Though it seems as a good bargain today, the charge should be clarified as soon as possible in that once the plant is built, it is nearly impossible to regret.


To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before Viva-Tech constructs its central plant in Grandview, the argument must provide enough support the reason why it is worthwhile to do so. To better evaluate the argument, we need to know not only information related to the cost of staff, wages and taxes, but all the other relevant aspects which is convincing.

yataUID: 2764788

24.The following appeared in a memo from the president of Viva-Tech, a manufacturer of high-tech medical equipment.

"In order to reduce costs, we should close some of our existing small assembly plants and build a large central plant. Grandview would be an ideal location for this new plant. First, of the locations that we have considered, Grandview has the largest adult population, so that we will be able to staff our plant quickly and easily. Second, since the average wage earned by workers in Grandview is less than that in the other locations, we should be able to keep production costs low. Last, as an inducement for us to build there, Grandview's town council has offered to allow us to operate for the first three years without paying city taxes."



The author recommends that some small assembly plants should be closed and a large one will be built in order to reduce costs. After all, Grandview owns adequate adult population while the average income is lower than the other areas, which make it possible to hire staff easily and keep production costs low. In addition, taxes are exempted from(我查了一下，tax-free的意思是这样的：(of goods or funds) not taxed，不知道这里的fund指什么？以防万一我改成了exempt，这样用对吗？) the first three years, which seems a sound welfare. However, it is groundless to judge the costs can be decreased by building a new plant in Grandview as the lack of specific research.

First, the author assumes that the future staff in the central plant are attributable to the largest adult number in Grandview. However, the author lacks evidence to confirm the assumption. It is entirely possible that the adults there do not get enough education to be a staff, so if the plant still decides to hire those people, Viva-Tech has to pay the extra fee for training, which actually increases the expense rather than reduce it. Perhaps, on the contrary, though Grandview owns a large amount of adults, who are well-educated, most of them are not majoring in high-technology, which require extra training as well. Without ruling out all the possibilities, the largest population of adults cannot convince me that Viva-Tech would save expense by hiring local people as staff.


Second, assuming that the cost for wages can be kept in a lower level in the fact that the average wages earned by workers there is less than in other cities, the author overlooks the possibility that not only wages for workers is a kind of payout, but other expense, such as the fee for raw material and transport, should be taken into account. Building the central plant to a new area, it is very likely that all the expenses would vary from the prior one, while the author provides no evidence that the total expenses on the new plant will decrease. To be convincing, the author should list all the possible costs and compare it with the present's expenses.


Third, the exemption for first three years in Grandview is insufficient to warrant the decrease of the cost. The arguer fails to provide any information concerning the fee that would be paid three years later, which may be several times as high as other areas. Though it seems as a good bargain today, the charge should be made clear as soon as possible in that once the plant is built, it is nearly impossible to regret.


To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before Viva-Tech constructs its central plant in Grandview, the argument must provide enough support to the reason why it is worthwhile to do so. To better evaluate the argument, the author should calculate the total expenses and taxes scientifically, and make more specific researches about whether the local adults are suitable for taking on the position as staff in Viva-Tech.